To a certain extent all of these are factors. It might help you to understand better why this movement was so very vitriolic and obsessive, to take a longer view. Cultural conservatism in Germany had taken on pathological qualities deep into the 19th century. There is a long, long debate amongst historians on where exactly it began and how exactly it became quite so bitter - and antisemitic - in Germany, in particular. Some writers trace the tradition all the way back to the post-Napoleonic era, when members of the military and Junker class organized a political resistance to the reforms of nationalists like Baron von Stein and William Humboldt who, for instance, abolished serfdom and established a public education system, respectively. It was certainly highly vitriolic by the age of Bismarck, who himself was a member of the Junker class, determined to check the spread of liberal politics in Germany. Everything he did, and he said so himself, he meant to check the spread of liberalism and democracy. Each war - Denmark, Austria, France - was calculated to undercut his domestic enemies, especially the National Liberals. He nurtured a culture of jingoism, militarism and anti-liberalism, though he himself was a highly cultured, dangerously intelligent man, quite aware of the trends in German culture. When Kaiser Wilhelm took the reigns of power, he lurched towards liberal policies, but eventually settled into government-by-jingoism similar to Bismarck's, if much, much less clever and organized.

By World War One, a great number of German conservatives were really no better than fanatics. They expressed their power through land ownership, the military, and by controlling the votes of the peasantry. As the power of the military grew in the course of the war, the influence of these conservative voices grew as well. By 1917, you had the Fatherland Party, led by Wilhelm von Kapp, who would go on to lead the famous, failed putsch after the war, demanding annexations that German power could not anywhere near support. It was a fever vision, remote from reality. Their radical agenda eventually led to the ouster of Bethmann Hollweg - a modern if flawed man - as Chancellor, and the disastrous offensive on the western front of 1918. At this point, your analysis comes to the fore - everything you mention factors in. But I think it becomes more clear where their movement comes from, if you understand that men of exactly this sort had been attacking and undermining liberal democracy for nearly 100 years by this point.