Heinrich Andergassen: Gestapo and SS Perpetrator from Hall in Tyrol | Part I

"Further article about Heinrich Andergassen:

Heinrich ANDERGASSEN (PART 2)

Heinrich ANDERGASSEN (PART 3)

Historical Context

Austria, the Gestapo, and National Socialist Persecution in Tyrol

The annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in March 1938 led to the rapid destruction of Austria’s political and constitutional structures. The police and gendarmerie were incorporated into the National Socialist apparatus of surveillance and persecution. From its regional headquarters in Innsbruck, the Gestapo extended its control across Tyrol and Vorarlberg.
Political opponents, members of the Catholic Church, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people suspected of criticising the regime were placed under surveillance. They faced interrogation, imprisonment, abuse, or deportation to a concentration camp.
Heinrich Andergassen’s career illustrates how an Austrian gendarmerie officer became part of this machinery of repression. After the “Anschluss”, he joined the Nazi Party, transferred to the Gestapo, and later became a member of the SS. His detailed knowledge of local circumstances and his personal connections gave him considerable power over people in Hall in Tyrol and the surrounding region.
The surviving documents reveal that Andergassen did not behave in the same way towards every individual. At times, he presented himself as a courteous neighbour or an apparently helpful official; in other cases, contemporary reports describe him as a brutal interrogator and persecutor. Individual acts of leniency must therefore be considered within the broader context of his active participation in the Gestapo’s system of persecution. They do not diminish his responsibility for persecution, torture, and later war crimes.
Following the German occupation of northern Italy in September 1943, Andergassen became head of the SD branch office in Merano. He later served as the official responsible for Jewish affairs within the Security Police and SD command in the “Operational Zone of the Alpine Foothills”. His career thus connected local persecution in Tyrol with the National Socialist policies of deportation and mass murder in northern Italy.

read more: 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Zone_of_the_Alpine_Foothills

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

Note on the Sources

This article is based on contemporary police and personnel records, affidavits, witness statements, archival material, and later historical research. These documents reflect the perspectives, knowledge, and intentions of their respective authors and must therefore be interpreted critically.
Where Heinrich Andergassen’s direct involvement cannot be established beyond doubt, the article distinguishes between documented facts, contemporary allegations, and historical interpretation.

Heinrich Andergassen (1908–1946)

Heinrich Andergassen during his trial before a U.S. military court in Naples on January 15, 1946. The former Gestapo and SS officer was sentenced to death for his involvement in the torture and murder of Allied prisoners of war. Photo: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration, College Park.

Heinrich Andergassen during his war crimes trial in Naples on January 15, 1946. The defendant is shown listening to his interpreter. Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (accessed August 12, 2026).

The archives of history often preserve shocking insights into the depths of human behavior. One such document is a confidential report from the Civil Police in Innsbruck dated June 1, 1945, just a few weeks after the end of the war. It sheds light on the career and machinations of Heinrich Andergassen, a man who, during the Nazi era, managed to insinuate himself into the trust of everyone – while simultaneously revealing himself to be an "extremely treacherous person." The life journey of this Tyrolean, born in Hall, ended just over a year after this report, at the end of a rope of an American military tribunal in Italy.

Biography: Heinrich Andergassen (1908–1946)

Heinrich Andergassen, known as Heinz, was born in Hall in Tyrol on 30 August 1908. His father, August Andergassen, was a police officer. After leaving school, Heinrich trained as a machine fitter at a large company in Wattens.
In 1929, he voluntarily joined the Austrian Federal Army. He received training at the Vienna Arsenal and attained the rank of platoon leader. He later transferred to the Austrian Federal Gendarmerie, attended the gendarmerie school, and was appointed as a gendarmerie officer in 1937. He initially served in Schwaz and later in Innsbruck.
Following Austria’s annexation by Nazi Germany in 1938, Andergassen began working for the Gestapo. He applied for membership of the Nazi Party on 30 May 1938 and was admitted retrospectively with effect from 1 May 1938 under membership number 6,181,471. In October 1938, he was appointed as a criminal assistant at the Innsbruck State Police Office. He joined the SS on 15 November 1939.
After the German occupation of northern Italy in 1943, Andergassen became head of the SD branch office in Merano. During the night of 15–16 September 1943, he commanded the arrest of Jewish residents of the city. He subsequently became the official responsible for Jewish affairs within the Security Police and SD command in the “Operational Zone of the Alpine Foothills”, headquartered in Bolzano. Within the SS, he attained the rank of SS-Untersturmführer.
After the war, Andergassen was tried by an American military court for his involvement in the torture and murder of seven Allied prisoners of war. He was sentenced to death and executed in Livorno on 26 July 1946.

The Early Years: An Apparently Unremarkable Officer

A personnel assessment preserved in the files describes how Andergassen was viewed early in his career. According to the document, he had carried out his duties against illegal National Socialists during the pre-1938 Austrian period “without harshness” and had shown no particular zeal. His character was described as “very decent”, while his professional performance was assessed as moderately good.
This document provides evidence of how Andergassen was officially evaluated at that particular time. It does not, however, provide a reliable basis for judging his later conduct or his political convictions.
After 1938, Andergassen became an active member of the National Socialist police and security apparatus. Whether this development represented a profound personal transformation or an adaptation to new political circumstances cannot be determined from the personnel assessment alone.

A Police Officer with Two Faces

A confidential police report dated 1 June 1945 presents a very different picture. According to its author, Andergassen enjoyed the “complete confidence” of his superior, Hilliges, and was regarded as “entirely reliable”. The report also alleges that he behaved courteously towards some prisoners while severely incriminating them in his official reports.
The document contains several serious allegations:

• Brutal interrogation methods: According to the report, Andergassen claimed that he had forced a lay brother from Martinsbühel to lie on the floor with his arms outstretched in order to extract a confession.
• Deception: He allegedly presented himself as friendly and understanding towards prisoners while subsequently making serious accusations against them.
• Harassment: After the release of Pintar, the chauffeur of the Bishop of Innsbruck, Andergassen reportedly imposed such restrictive conditions that Pintar would have preferred to return to prison.
• Arbitrary use of power: The report states that Andergassen ordered the arrest of Dr Ernst Verdross, a former Dachau prisoner, after Verdross had decorated his home for the Corpus Christi procession but had failed to display flags on National Socialist holidays.

These allegations originate from a post-war police report and should be identified as the statements of its author. Nevertheless, when considered alongside other surviving records, they provide important evidence of Andergassen’s conduct within the Gestapo.

Karl Killinger: A Jehovah’s Witness from Andergassen’s Neighbourhood

Karl Killinger (1901–1940), a committed Jehovah’s Witness, lived at Ritter-Waldauf-Straße 6, only a short distance from Andergassen’s residence.
Jehovah’s Witnesses—then commonly referred to as “Bible Students”—refused, on religious grounds, to perform the Hitler salute, swear an oath to Adolf Hitler, or serve in the armed forces. Those who refused to renounce their faith faced imprisonment, torture, and deportation to concentration camps.
Killinger was arrested on 16 February 1939. He was subsequently deported to Dachau and later to the Gusen concentration camp, where he died on 19 January 1940 as a result of the conditions of imprisonment.
Whether Heinrich Andergassen was personally involved in the arrest of his neighbour cannot be established from the sources examined to date. Because of his Gestapo position and his detailed knowledge of local circumstances, he may have been aware of the case. This alone, however, does not prove his direct participation.

read more:

(EN) Jehovah's Witnesses.

Memorial (EN) Karl Killinger

The Warning of Dr Nikolaus Pfeifauf and Paula Niederwolfsgruber

On 26 October 1941, Andergassen informed Dr Nikolaus Pfeifauf and Dr Hermann Blassnig that Paula Niederwolfsgruber and her brother Franz were to be arrested. He also warned Pfeifauf that he himself was at risk of arrest.
Despite these warnings, Gestapo measures followed:

• Paula Niederwolfsgruber was arrested on 27 October 1941 and held in police custody for three days. She was also expelled from school.
• Dr Nikolaus Pfeifauf was arrested and detained for three weeks.
• Franz Niederwolfsgruber was reprimanded but apparently considered too young to be imprisoned.

The surviving documents establish that Andergassen knew about the impending measures and warned people within their circle. They do not conclusively show whether he was personally involved in planning or carrying out the arrests.
His reasons for issuing the warnings also remain unclear. They may have represented an attempt to help, a means of gaining trust, or the communication of information about Gestapo actions already under way. None of these interpretations can currently be proven conclusively.

read more:

(EN) Dr. N. Pfeifauf und Dr. H. Blassnig

(EN) Paula Niederwolfsgruber

Dr Ernst Verdross: Renewed Arrest and Gestapo Pressure

Photograph  Dr. Ernts Verdross. in: Präsidialakt III 1233/46 Heinrich Andergassen. In Historical Archive - Historisches Archiv der Landespolizeidirektion Tirol. Fachzirkel Exekutivgeschichte. 

Dr Ernst Verdross, a former prisoner of the Dachau concentration camp, lived in the same neighbourhood as Andergassen. On 16 June 1940, Verdross was arrested again. The action was connected to his public expression of Catholic faith: he had decorated the windows of his home for the Corpus Christi procession while failing to display flags on National Socialist holidays.
Following his release, Verdross was required to comply with official restrictions. He was not deported to Dachau a second time.
According to the documents discussed in this article, Andergassen presented himself to the Verdross family as a concerned and helpful neighbour while also participating in the interrogation and intimidation of Dr Verdross. This contrast between his private manner and his official actions is central to the family’s account of the events.

read more:

(EN) Dr. Ernst Verdross

Blog 87 (EN) Dr. Ernst Verdross (einzeln)

Book Presentation Concentration Camp Dachau

Maria Mair, née Ghedina, and the Arrest of Dr Josef Mair

Maria Mair, née Ghedina, had known Heinrich Andergassen since childhood and lived in the same building. When her husband, Dr Josef Mair, was arrested by the Gestapo on 22 April 1941, she turned to Andergassen for help.
According to her later account, Andergassen replied that there was nothing he could do and that the situation looked very serious for her husband. The statement documents how Maria Mair remembered their encounter during a moment of considerable distress.
This testimony should be understood as her personal recollection. It provides an important insight into how Andergassen’s conduct was experienced by people who had known him before his Gestapo career.

read more:

Blog (ENI) Dr. Josef Mair

Blog (EN) Maria Mair "Maria Mair, the Brave Woman from Glasnhof"

Johann Müller and His Daughter Maria

Another statement concerns Johann Müller and his daughter Maria, who had been held in custody. Müller testified that Andergassen had always treated him calmly and courteously when he asked to visit his daughter.
According to Müller, Andergassen granted Maria every concession within his authority. He allegedly allowed her to leave custody briefly following the death of her grandmother on 16 July 1940, accompanied her to the cemetery, and permitted her to visit her family home.
The document records an instance in which Andergassen was perceived as helpful and humane by a prisoner and her father. It does not, by itself, reveal his motives, nor can it be used as a general assessment of his conduct towards other prisoners.
Historical analysis must acknowledge this individual experience without allowing it to obscure the evidence of persecution and violence contained in other sources.

Dr Josef Fink’s Statement: A Document of Ambivalence

Another remarkable testimony comes from Dr. Fink, who wrote a statement in Volderwildbad on May 12, 1945. In it, Fink described his experiences with Andergassen:

Photo: Statement of Dr. Josef Fink. In: Heinrich Andergassen. Presidential File 1233/46 in the Historical Archive of the Police Directorate of Tyrol, Specialist Circle for Executive History.

Witness Statement:

I was reported in 1939 to the Secret State Police in Innsbruck by Hermann Schölg, an employee of the Bürgerliches Bräuhaus (beer depot in Solbad Hall), for an alleged “derogatory remark” about the regime. Following this, and after a similar report had been filed by a certain Kresentia Schwimmberger, a waitress at Café Kassenbacher in Hall, I was arrested.
My case was handled under the Malicious Practices Act (Heimtückegesetz), but during the interrogation it was deemed harmless, so that the matter was concluded with a fourteen-day detention in the police prison in Innsbruck. I am aware that Criminal Commissioner Andergassen, in whose department my case was processed, handled the matter benevolently and in my favor, thereby contributing significantly to the comparatively favorable outcome.
Volders, May 12, 1945
Dr. phil. Josef Fink
Volderwildbad
Post Volders

Commentary: The Statement of Dr. Josef Fink – A Document of Ambivalence

The affidavit written by Dr Josef Fink on 12 May 1945 is one of several documents describing Andergassen’s conduct towards individual persecuted persons from their personal perspective. It records a specific case and should therefore be neither generalised nor treated in isolation as a comprehensive assessment of Andergassen.
Dr Josef Fink of Volderwildbad, or Volders, was denounced in 1939 for an allegedly “derogatory remark” about the National Socialist regime. According to his statement, reports were made by Hermann Schlögl, an employee of the Bürgerliches Bräuhaus brewery, and by the waitress Kresentia Schwimmberger. Fink was subsequently arrested and his case was investigated under the so-called Malicious Practices Act (Heimtückegesetz), which was used by the Nazi regime to prosecute critical statements and alleged attacks on the state and the Nazi Party.
Fink was imprisoned for fourteen days. In his affidavit, he explicitly attributed the comparatively favourable outcome of his case to Heinrich Andergassen. He wrote that Andergassen had handled the matter “benevolently and in my favour” and had “contributed substantially to the relatively favourable outcome”.
The source therefore establishes that Fink perceived Andergassen’s actions in his own case as helpful and mitigating.
This individual experience does not, however, demonstrate that Andergassen generally acted with leniency or that he secretly opposed the National Socialist regime. Other contemporary reports and statements present a markedly different picture. They describe him as a brutal interrogator who abused prisoners, threatened them with deportation to concentration camps, and exploited his position of power.
One of these accounts concerns a lay brother from Martinsbühel whom Andergassen allegedly forced to lie on the floor with his arms outstretched during an interrogation. He also took action against Dr Ernst Verdross, his neighbour and a former Dachau prisoner. Verdross was arrested again on 16 June 1940 and, following his release, was subjected to official restrictions. He was not deported to Dachau a second time.
The surviving sources therefore show that different individuals experienced Andergassen’s conduct in very different ways. Why he treated Fink comparatively favourably cannot be established from this affidavit alone. Several interpretations are possible, but none can be regarded as conclusively proven:

1. Selective exercise of power: Andergassen may have used his discretionary authority differently depending on the individual, the circumstances, or his own interests.
2. Strategic conduct: It is conceivable that helpful or accommodating behaviour towards certain individuals secured their gratitude. Whether the prospect of obtaining future exonerating statements already played a role cannot be proven.
3. Different perceptions among those affected: Fink may have experienced Andergassen’s intervention as genuine assistance without knowing how Andergassen treated other prisoners.

The timing of the affidavit is noteworthy. It was written on 12 May 1945, only a few days after the end of National Socialist rule. Numerous certificates and statements in support of former officials and members of the Nazi apparatus were produced during this early post-war period.
The document does not reveal whether Fink wrote his statement at Andergassen’s request or whether he knew about the allegations made against him by other prisoners.
Fink’s affidavit should therefore not be regarded as a general assessment of Andergassen’s character or his treatment of persecuted people. It records Josef Fink’s personal experience. Only when it is compared with other statements and archival records does it become apparent that Andergassen exercised his power differently towards different individuals.
Historical interpretation must make these contradictions visible without resolving them prematurely. The favourable treatment of Fink does not diminish Andergassen’s active participation in the National Socialist system of persecution or the violence documented in other sources. At the same time, Fink’s personal experience should not be dismissed as the result of deliberate deception unless such an intention can be demonstrated.

read more:

Blog (EN) Dr. Greiter, Dr. Kneussl und Dr. Fink

🇬🇧Blog (EN) Dr. phil. Josef Fink

🇬🇧Blog (EN) Dr. jur. Franz Greiter

🇬🇧Blog (EN) Dr. jur. Erich Kneussl

Heinrich (Heinz) Andergassen (1908-1946)

read more: 

Blog (EN) Heinrich Andergassen (Part 2)

Blog (EN) Heinrich Andergassen (Part 3)

Summary

The first part of Heinrich Andergassen’s biography traces his development from an apparently unremarkable Austrian gendarmerie officer into an influential member of the Gestapo and SS. Drawing on police records, witness statements, affidavits, and other historical documents, the article examines his activities in Innsbruck, Hall in Tyrol, and the surrounding region.
The cases of Karl Killinger, Paula and Franz Niederwolfsgruber, Dr Nikolaus Pfeifauf, Dr Ernst Verdross, Maria and Dr Josef Mair, Maria Müller, and Dr Josef Fink reveal different aspects of his conduct. Some individuals experienced Andergassen as courteous, helpful, or lenient. Other sources report deception, intimidation, arbitrary arrests, and brutal interrogation methods.
His occasional leniency did not place him outside the National Socialist system of persecution. Rather, the documents demonstrate how selective assistance and unpredictable behaviour could become instruments in the exercise of personal power.
From 1943 onwards, Andergassen continued his career in German-occupied northern Italy. He participated in the persecution of Jewish people and was later involved in the torture and murder of Allied prisoners of war. An American military court sentenced him to death, and he was executed in Livorno on 26 July 1946.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Who was Heinrich Andergassen?

Heinrich “Heinz” Andergassen was an Austrian gendarmerie officer who joined the Gestapo and SS after the “Anschluss” of 1938. Born in Hall in Tyrol in 1908, he later became an SD official in German-occupied northern Italy and was executed as a convicted war criminal in 1946.

What was Heinrich Andergassen’s connection to Hall in Tyrol?

Andergassen was born in Hall in Tyrol and lived in the Ritter-Waldauf-Straße. His local knowledge and personal connections placed him in close proximity to several people who were later persecuted by the Gestapo.

When did Heinrich Andergassen join the Nazi Party?

Andergassen applied for admission to the NSDAP on 30 May 1938 and was admitted retrospectively with effect from 1 May 1938. He joined the SS in November 1939.

What position did Andergassen hold in the Gestapo?

He began working as a criminal assistant at the Gestapo office in Innsbruck in October 1938. He later became a criminal commissioner and conducted investigations and interrogations involving people accused of political, religious or anti-Nazi activities.

How did Andergassen treat prisoners?

Archival records and witness statements present contrasting experiences. Some people described courteous treatment or individual acts of leniency, while others reported deception, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and brutal interrogation methods. These individual acts of leniency do not negate his active participation in the Nazi system of persecution.

Was Andergassen involved in the persecution of his neighbors?

The article documents his actions against or in connection with several people from his immediate social and residential environment, including Dr. Ernst Verdross and Dr. Josef Mair. Whether he was personally involved in every local arrest—such as that of Karl Killinger—cannot always be established conclusively from the available evidence.

Why did Andergassen warn Paula and Franz Niederwolfsgruber?

Andergassen reportedly warned members of their circle about impending Gestapo action. Nevertheless, arrests and punishments followed. The surviving evidence does not conclusively establish his motive. The warning may have been intended to gain trust, cultivate the image of a helper or reflect his knowledge of an operation in which the Gestapo was already involved.

Who was Karl Killinger?

Karl Killinger was a Jehovah’s Witness from Hall in Tyrol who refused the Hitler salute, military service and an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler for religious reasons. He was arrested in 1939, deported to Dachau and later to Gusen concentration camp, where he died in January 1940.

What happened to Dr. Ernst Verdross?

Dr. Ernst Verdross, a former Dachau prisoner and neighbor of Andergassen, was subjected to renewed Gestapo persecution. According to the documents discussed in the article, Andergassen presented himself to Verdross’s family as a helpful neighbor while taking part in the interrogations and intimidation directed against him.

What role did Andergassen play in northern Italy?

Following the German occupation of northern Italy in 1943, Andergassen became head of the SD external office in Merano. He commanded the arrest of Jewish residents and later served as the official responsible for Jewish affairs within the Security Police and SD command in the Operational Zone of the Alpine Foothills.

Why was Heinrich Andergassen sentenced to death?

An American military tribunal convicted Andergassen for his involvement in the torture and murder of seven Allied prisoners of war, including OSS officer Roderick Stephen Hall. He was executed in Livorno, Italy, on 26 July 1946.

What do the apparently favorable testimonies about Andergassen mean?

They show that perpetrators did not necessarily behave identically toward every person. Selective leniency could arise from personal preference, calculation or an attempt to create favorable witnesses. Such testimony must be evaluated alongside the broader documentary evidence of Andergassen’s participation in persecution and violence.

What sources are used for this biography?

The article draws on a confidential police report from June 1945, Gestapo personnel records, sworn witness statements, private collections, oral-history material and records held by the Historical Archive of the Tyrol Police Directorate and other regional archives.

Historical Context of the Source

Roderick “Steve” Hall and the OSS Mission at the Brenner Pass

Roderick Stephen “Steve” Hall was an American officer and member of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the United States intelligence agency during the Second World War. In late 1944, he was deployed behind German lines in northern Italy. His mission was to work with local resistance groups to investigate and, if possible, disrupt German transport and supply routes across the Brenner Pass. This route was of great strategic importance because German troops and military supplies moved along it between the German Reich and Italy.
Hall was captured near Cortina d’Ampezzo in January 1945 and subsequently taken to Bolzano. Although he was wearing an American uniform and asserted his status as a soldier, the German security authorities treated him as an enemy agent. Members of the Security Police and the SD interrogated and tortured him. He was murdered on February 20, 1945.
Heinrich Andergassen was one of the Gestapo officers involved in Hall’s interrogation and murder. After the war, the case became a central charge in the proceedings before a U.S. military tribunal in Naples. Andergassen was sentenced to death together with August Schiffer and Albert Storz. All three were executed in Livorno on July 26, 1946.

Source: Anthony Quibble, “Roderick ‘Steve’ Hall: Documentary History of an Alpine Tragedy during the Last Convulsions of World War II,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1967. Released in full through the CIA Historical Review Program on September 22, 1993. Available online from the Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

Commentary on the Source

The document reproduced here, “Roderick ‘Steve’ Hall,” was compiled by Anthony Quibble for the CIA professional journal Studies in Intelligence. It bears the subtitle “Documentary History of an Alpine Tragedy during the Last Convulsions of World War II” and was released in full on September 22, 1993, as part of the CIA Historical Review Program. It is now available through the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence. CIA document “Roderick ‘Steve’ Hall”
The text is not a single contemporary primary source, but a later documentary compilation. Quibble brings together OSS reports, operational messages, German records, Allied investigative reports and witness statements from the immediate postwar period to reconstruct Hall’s mission, capture and murder.
The source is particularly important for the biography of Heinrich Andergassen because it documents his position within the Gestapo in Bolzano and his involvement in the Hall case. It includes, among other records, the statement given by camp physician Dr. Karl Pittschieler on June 1, 1945. Pittschieler reported that Andergassen and Albert Storz brought Hall’s body to the Bolzano transit camp on the evening of February 20, 1945. The documentation also contains statements concerning Andergassen’s work in Section IV of the Gestapo and his close cooperation with Gestapo chief August Schiffer.
The source also demonstrates how the Nazi perpetrators attempted to conceal the crime after Hall’s death. His death was initially presented as suicide during an air raid, while “cardiac paralysis” was entered as the official cause of death. Only the Allied investigation, the discovery of Hall’s grave and the questioning of witnesses made it possible to reconstruct what had happened.
From a source-critical perspective, it must be remembered that some of the statements were recorded only after the war and were partly based on personal recollections or second-hand information. Their date of creation, perspective and the possible interests of those providing testimony must therefore be considered carefully. Nevertheless, when examined together and compared with the military trial records, the collected documents possess considerable historical value. They show how Andergassen’s activities developed from regional Gestapo persecution in Tyrol into his participation in torture and murder in German-occupied northern Italy.