The French response to the Third Republic was to implement reforms. The German response to the Weimar Republic was the Third Reich. I hope you see why I see a difference.
The Third Republic collapsed in WW2, the 4th Republic was a response to Vichy. And 'the Germans' as a whole did not ask for the Third Reich, in fact a majority never voted for Hitler or the Nazis. The Third Reich was imposed on the German people by Hindenburg's clique and the powers of state given over to the Nazi party. Hence the term "Machtergriefung" literally seizure of power, that the Nazis used to describe their ascension to power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_seizure_of_power
The
Nazi seizure of power (German:
Machtergreifung) was the acquisition by
Adolf Hitler and the
National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) of the
chancellorship of Germany, and of several other high-ranking cabinet posts, on 30 January 1933, following the appointment of Hitler as chancellor by President
Paul von Hindenburg, then aged 84. It also refers to the
period of consolidation of Nazi power through intimidation and violence, culminating in the establishment of the Nazi Party as the only legal political party in Germany in July 1933.
I'm really getting the impression you're a bigot against German people, thinking they were just a people waiting to goose step to the Nazi tune just as soon as they could.
The British system had a government that obeyed Parliament and (more than the Germans, certainly), respected the rule of law. Imagine the Silent Dictatorship in Britain; I can't see how you even get to that point.
In the period of the German Empire? Provide examples of the German Imperial government not obeying the letter of their law as compared to the British. The "Silent Dictatorship" was able to get as informally powerful as it did in the second half of the war due to the widespread support it had from the majority of the public, aristocrats, and industrialists; the civilian government of the Kaiser, Chancellor, and Reichstag hadn't really demonstrated particular competence in leadership, so had lost the support of much of the public, which lead them to acquiesce to popular will when it came to conflicts with the military leadership.
France had a similar situation with a constantly rotating weak government and a powerful military leadership changed out only once, until Clemenceau was able to use anti-democratic means to assert his authority over nation and military and establish an authoritarian regime maintained by using the implements of government to silence his political opponents. Or you can compare that to the US which used it's levers of power to silence anti-war sentiment and crack down on German-Americans and Socialists. Britain had the advantage of having the war on the continent, so the army and government were effectively separated physically, which enabled the civilian government to maintain control over the home front and military by being able to throttle it's access to the media and public, while the incompetence of the army leadership (to the public at least) gave the government greater popularity and with that authority than the military.
In Germany the situation was reversed with H-L being showered with media attention for their success, while the government got all the public hatred for their flecklessness, especially the Kaiser, which discredited civilian authority and made them weak in the crucial realm of public opinion. That is what really counted in terms of actual power when there is a public disagreement between different branches of government, especially civilian and military. So in the end it wasn't that the civilian government of Germany in WW1 was particularly more anti-democratic any more than their rivals, it was that the civilian government lost the support of the majority of the public, while certain generals built up public support and rode to power on wave and once in power wielded that to effectively control foreign and to a degree domestic policy. That was no less possible in most European states at the time (remember the military forced the Czar out of power in Russia once he had lost public support), but Entente generals were not racking up the successes to gain public support while their civilian governments were alienating their publics sufficiently for the military to be able leverage their public support against the civilian government. It certainly isn't like that hasn't happened in French or British history before.