In the 1943 film Die Philharmoniker, Joseph Goebbels aimed to showcase the Reich’s orchestral prestige. The Berliner Philharmoniker, absorbed by the German state following the Nazi rise in 1933, operated under direct government control. The orchestra’s service was considered civil duty, overseen by the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. This arrangement was not coincidental; it was part of an orchestrated cultural movement designed to depict German music as the superior legacy of a powerful and “purified” nation.

Under Goebbels’ ownership, the Berliner Philharmoniker became a well-oiled propaganda machine. No detail was overlooked, and the orchestra accompanied key Nazi events—from Hitler’s birthday celebrations to the 1936 Olympic Games opening. Music, in this context, was no longer a mere art form; it was the embodiment of an idealized German essence, one thought to unify the nation, fortify morale, and inspire a belief in Germany’s supremacy. Meanwhile, Hermann Göring maintained control of the nation’s state theatres, fostering a similarly narrow focus on “pure” German productions.

Germanic Music and the “Trinity of the Viennese Classics”
Goebbels’ ideal conductor, Wilhelm Furtwängler, upheld a repertoire aligning with the party’s ideology, keeping works by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven firmly in the spotlight. These three formed what Nazi musicologists hailed as the “Wiener Klassik” or “Viennese Classicism.” More than 70% of Furtwängler’s performances under the Third Reich centered around these composers, alongside German luminaries such as Brahms, Strauss, and Bruckner. Foreign composers were conspicuously absent, with Hitler’s rhetoric dismissing them as “petty shopkeepers” unworthy of standing before Germany’s grand musical throne.

When asked about the steadfast presence of Mozart and others in his repertoire, the Furtwängler character in Die Philharmoniker replied that his choices were neither those of a “curious wanderer” nor a “scholar with mere academic interests.” Instead, he professed a love for “great works,” explaining that he performed them simply for their inherent beauty, warmth, and inspiration. This was German music’s ordained narrative—a “sacred” heritage of unparalleled profundity.

The Roots of Viennese Classicism
“Viennese Classicism” as a concept predated the Nazi era, but its nationalist overtones were pronounced by the Third Reich. Originally crafted by Austrian nationalist Raphael Georg Kiesewetter in the 19th century, the term had aimed to cement the supremacy of German-Austrian composers, conveniently disregarding classical contributions from French and Italian composers. The label became a tool of cultural defense, a rallying point for those seeking to assert German music’s dominance against the rising popularity of Italian opera and French influences during the early 1800s.

The foundations of this fabricated “classic” period can be traced back to Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, who in the late 18th century declared that Haydn’s compositions had “created a new era.” Later, Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann echoed this sentiment, citing Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven as pioneers of a “new art” and suggesting that their work represented the pinnacle of musical evolution.

As these sentiments gained traction, composers and critics alike joined the nationalist cause, reinforcing the notion that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were the undisputed founders of a “German school” of music. The fervor peaked with Johann Amadeus Wendt, who claimed that this supposed German period represented “the basis of true musical enjoyment in Germany.” Kiesewetter later reinforced this view, declaring that their “perfection” elevated them as models for all German composers, supposedly inspiring “every field” of music to its greatest heights.

Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven: A Nationalist Trinity
The Nazi narrative immortalized this trinity as the venerated cornerstone of German music, with Bach serving as a revered forebear. Yet this lineage was a product of careful myth-making—a constructed genealogy aimed at sidelining external influences and elevating German music as the ultimate heritage. Kiesewetter’s classification, driven more by national pride than musicological accuracy, omitted the considerable European and Italian influences that shaped these composers.

Conclusion:
The Berliner Philharmoniker, under Nazi control, was not merely an orchestra but a cultural weapon. The fabricated history and curated concert repertoire promoted by Goebbels’ propaganda machine served to reinforce a vision of German musical “purity.” This engineered lineage—anchored in the mythologized legacy of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven—supported the Third Reich’s ideology, presenting German music as the supreme, enduring inheritance of a powerful nation. In reality, however, the concept of a “German school” of music had been forged in the fires of nationalism, overlooking the many non-German influences that enriched these celebrated works.