[Pius_IX]

Of course Germany had democratic traditions, going back to the early/middle of the 19th century. The Frankfurter Nationalversammlung at 1848, while it failed quite spectacularly, consisted of people from all over Germany debating. Even before that in many of the smaller kingdoms the people had achieved some representation and constitutions they guaranteed them the basic democratic rights of assembly, speech and a parliament in which to voice their opinions.

The Kaiserreich had a parliament. Weimar failed in the end and had plenty of problems but still it was a democratic government and that despite major challenges (Civil War, lost World War, bad economy).

And if you are willing to look into the many states and small countries that made up Germany before its unification you have 'democratic' city-states going back to the middle ages. Don't forget that Germany was and is deeply federal (Its official name is 'Federal Republic of Germany' after all).

Even right before the democracy was abolished by the Nazis the largest federal state was governed by the Social Democrats (Prussia).

Hell, our social democrats keep telling everybody that their party was founded on 23 May 1863 even if nobody cares.

[watwut]

Weimar was forced on them and was seen as disorderly mess by population. Yes, they had parliament pre-WWI and they still were not democracy. They were monarchy run by royal families. They were also highly militarized country at that too.

Some debates and some representation does not constitute "democratic tradition".

[Pius_IX]

Weimar was forced on Germany? The Kaiser had abdicated, there were revolutions all around Germany, the navy was in full on mutiny. Of course it was seen as disorderly mess but it was in no way forced upon the population from outside and instead was the result of a dozen different forces inside of Germany pulling and pushing to achieve their own personal goals. While it started with bloodshed (Mainly between the communists and the democratic left) in the following elections the social democrats where elected with a wide majority, which in large parts was a testament to the level of public support they and their democracy had.

And I am really curious what would constitute a "democratic tradition" in your opinion. By 1945 the German people had been organizing themselves for around a hundred years in different parties, unions, parliaments. They had newspapers discussing everything from politics, culture, society and democracy. They had organized countless nationwide strikes and participated in two revolutions. The first chancelor of Germany after 1945 had been a democratically elected mayor of Cologne for around 15 years. Was part of a political party since 1907.

Maybe look at the Kapp Putsch. Right wing politicians and militias occupied Berlin in 1920. The democratically elected government called for a general strike and for the next couple of days the whole country stood still. No trains. No work in any factory. No news paper. No telephone. In Berlin there was no water. No electricity. Absolutely nothing. This doesn't happen in a nation with an apathetic populace which has no democratic tradition and just wants it's Kaiser back.

Democratic tradition doesn't just consist of having a parliament as the highest authority in your country if you ask me.

[rayiner]

> Some debates and some representation does not constitute "democratic tradition".

Those things are the foundation for what becomes democracy. To use England as the clearest example, Democracy there evolved with feudal aristocrats creating a parliament to have input to the king’s decision making, and from there parliament taking on more and more power and eventually being turned over to popular control through elections.