Heinrich ANDERGASSEN (1908–1946) (PART 1)

"Further article about Heinrich Andergassen:

Heinrich ANDERGASSEN (PART 2)

Heinrich ANDERGASSEN (PART 3)

Photo Andergassen, Heinrich, January 15, 1946, during his trial in Naples. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Online, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Andergassen#/media/Datei:Andergassen.jpg (as of March 17, 2026)

 Heinrich ANDERGASSEN

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.

 Heinrich ANDERGASSEN- Biography:

Heinrich Andergassen, known as Heinz, was born on July 30, 1908, in Hall in Tyrol. His father was the policeman August Andergassen. After finishing school, he learned the trade of a machine fitter at a large company in Wattens.
In 1929, he voluntarily joined the Austrian Federal Army, where he was trained at the Vienna Arsenal among other places and attained the rank of squad leader (Zugsführer). Later, he transferred to the Federal Gendarmerie, attended the gendarmerie school, and was appointed a gendarmerie officer in 1937. In this capacity, he was initially stationed in Schwaz and later in Innsbruck.
After the "Anschluss" of Austria to the National Socialist German Reich in 1938, Andergassen became active in the Gestapo. On May 30, 1938, he applied for membership in the NSDAP and was admitted retroactively to May 1, 1938 (membership number 6,181,471). In October of the same year, he was employed as a criminal assistant at the State Police Office in Innsbruck. On November 15, 1939, he joined the SS. During the occupation of the Sudetenland, he served as a Gendarmerie District Senior Sergeant (Gendarmeriebezirksoberwachtmeister).
Following the German occupation of Italy in 1943, Andergassen was appointed head of the SD external office in Merano. In this role, on the night of September 15-16, 1943, he commanded the arrest of Jewish citizens living in Merano. Subsequently, he took over the post of Jewish affairs officer (Judenreferent) at the Command of the Security Police and the SD in the "Operational Zone of the Alpine Foothills" (Operationszone Alpenvorland), based in Bolzano. He attained the SS rank of SS-Untersturmführer (Second Lieutenant).
Due to his involvement in the torture and murder of seven Allied prisoners of war, Andergassen was indicted as a war criminal after the end of the war. He was sentenced to death by an Allied military tribunal and executed on July 26, 1946, in Livorno, Italy, just a few days before his 38th birthday.

The Early Years: An Official with an Unremarkable Personnel File

A revealing document from the early period of Andergassen's career shows how he was perceived by his superiors. In a personnel assessment addressed to the Gestapo Innsbruck from 1930, it states:
*"Re: Andergassen Heinrich, Gendarmerie Officer, born Aug. 30, 1908, in Hall, Roman Catholic, resident in Hall i.T., Ritterwaldaustrasse 8 b/Ghedina.*
Andergassen was with the investigative department of the Criminal Police. During the pre-Anschluss era ('Systemzeit'), he performed his duties against National Socialists without harshness and showed no particular zeal for the job.
Character-wise, he is described as very decent.
His professional performance is rated as moderately good."
This document is remarkable because it shows Andergassen before the Nazi seizure of power as an inconspicuous official, characterized as "very decent," without any special zeal in his actions against the then-illegal National Socialists. The assessment attests that during the "Systemzeit"—meaning the period before the "Anschluss"—he carried out his duties against National Socialists "without harshness."
But this seemingly decent official would undergo a frightening transformation after 1938—or perhaps this already demonstrated his ability to adapt to the prevailing power structures and change his mask.

An Official with Two Faces

The police report of June 1, 1945, paints a completely different picture. Andergassen, who worked at the Gestapo office in Innsbruck, enjoyed the "complete trust" of his superior Hilliges and was considered "completely reliable." He understood how to make himself popular with his colleagues. But behind this facade hid a brutal interrogator.
The report contains specific allegations that reveal Andergassen's true character:
Brutal Interrogation Methods: He boasted about having a lay brother from Martinsbühel lie on the floor with his arms spread out to force a confession—an allusion to a crucifixion position.
Treachery: He would act friendly toward prisoners, only to heavily incriminate them in his reports.
Harassment: After the release of the chauffeur for the Bishop of Innsbruck, a man named Pintar, from police custody, Andergassen imposed such impossible conditions on him that he preferred to go back to prison. Later, Andergassen tried to illegally obtain film stock through Pintar.
Arbitrariness: He arbitrarily arrested Dr. Verdross from Hall, a former leader of the Home Guard (Heimatwehr) who had already been a Dachau concentration camp prisoner. The reason: Verdross had taken photographs during a Corpus Christi procession and decorated his apartment, while he did not fly flags on Nazi holidays.
Cynicism: During the arrest of the Jewish citizen Schüller, Andergassen had Schüller's lover, a prostitute from Vienna, brought to Innsbruck, apparently to use her as leverage or an incriminating witness.

The Neighbor: Karl Killinger – A Jehovah’s Witness from Waldaufstraße

Just two houses away from Heinrich Andergassen, at Ritter-Waldauf-Straße 6, lived Karl Killinger (1901–1940), a committed Jehovah’s Witness.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses – at the time called “Bible Students” – refused, on religious grounds, to give the Hitler salute, to swear an oath of allegiance to the “Führer,” or to perform military service. Those who did not renounce their faith faced imprisonment, torture, or deportation to a concentration camp.
Killinger, who openly professed his beliefs, was arrested on February 16, 1939. A few weeks later, he was deported to Dachau, and then to Gusen concentration camp. He died there on January 19, 1940, as a result of the prison conditions.
The geographical proximity raises a disturbing question: Was Andergassen involved in the arrest of his neighbor? As the Gestapo officer responsible for his home district, he was familiar with local conditions – and lived door to door with his later victim.

The Apparent Warning: Dr. Nikolaus Pfeifauf and Paula Niederwolfsgruber

A particularly telling example of Andergassen's perfidious double game occurred in October 1941. On October 26, 1941, Andergassen informed Dr. Nikolaus Pfeifauf (1910–1971) and Dr. Hermann Blassnig (1911–1985) that Paula Niederwolfsgruber (1924–2003) and her brother Franz Niederwolfsgruber were to be arrested. At the same time, he also warned Pfeifauf himself about an impending arrest.
To those affected, this must have seemed like an act of humanity: a Gestapo official warning them of imminent danger, giving them the chance to prepare or go into hiding. But what happened?
Despite the warning, all those named were still arrested by the Gestapo:
·       Paula Niederwolfsgruber was arrested on October 27, 1941, and imprisoned for three days in the police jail. In addition, she received a school expulsion—a harsh punishment for the then 17-year-old, whose education was thereby destroyed.
·       Dr. Nikolaus Pfeifauf was also arrested and spent three weeks in custody.
·       Franz Niederwolfsgruber received reprimands because he was "too young" for arrest—a cynical mercy of the regime.
The question arises: Did Andergassen really warn them out of humanity, or was he playing a perfidious game? By informing those affected, he could portray himself as a benevolent helper—gain their trust. That they were still arrested he could later blame on the "harshness of the system" or on other offices within the Gestapo. In reality, he was probably himself involved in the arrests or at least privy to their planning.
These apparent warnings, which ultimately protected no one, followed the same pattern that Andergassen applied with others: He acted friendly and helpful, while in reality he was part of the oppressive apparatus that was persecuting these very people.

Terror in the Neighborhood: The Arrest of Dr. Ernst Verdross (1892–1963) - June 16, 1940

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

Andergassen's approach toward his own neighbors on Waldaufstrasse in Hall was particularly perfidious. The house Ghedina at Waldaufstrasse 8, where Andergassen lived, was part of a neighborhood that suffered under his insidious nature. One of his neighbors was Dr. Ernst Verdross, who also lived on Waldaufstrasse. His "crime" from the perspective of the Nazi rulers: He had decorated the windows of his apartment for the Corpus Christi procession. This public display of religious confession—at a time when the regime was seeking to control and suppress the churches—was enough for Andergassen to take action against his neighbor.
But Andergassen went a step further, thereby revealing his particularly treacherous nature. When Dr. Verdross was arrested, Andergassen acted conspicuously helpful and friendly toward Mrs. Verdross. He played the concerned neighbor who might be able to do something, thus gaining her trust.
What Mrs. Verdross did not know: The friendly neighbor next door was in reality the one who repeatedly brought her husband to Gestapo interrogations and pressured him with the threat of being sent to Dachau concentration camp. Andergassen played his role as interrogator with such perfidy that Dr. Verdross never suspected until the end who kept bringing him in for questioning. The friendly neighbor and the brutal Gestapo official were one and the same person.

The Heartless Answer to Maria Mair née Ghedina - April 23, 1941

Another example of Andergassen's callousness in the same neighborhood concerns Maria Mair (1908-1990), née Ghedina, who had attended kindergarten with Andergassen and also lived in the Ghedina house. When her husband, Dr. Josef Mair (1909-1986), was arrested by the Gestapo on April 22, 1941, she sought help in her desperation from her former kindergarten friend and neighbor.
In contrast to his hypocritically helpful demeanor toward Mrs. Verdross, here he showed his true face without a mask: his response was merciless and without any human emotion. He could do nothing about it, and things looked very bad for her husband. This cold rejection of a woman who had known him since childhood and sought his help in her greatest need reveals the full extent of Andergassen's emotional coldness and unscrupulousness.

The Boundlessness of Deception: Johann Müller and His Daughter 1940

Perhaps the most human and at the same time most perfidious deception by Andergassen is revealed in another document from the same period. Johann Müller from Innsbruck (Pradlerstraße 11) confirmed upon request:
"I hereby confirm upon request that Mr. Heinrich Andergassen always received me calmly and courteously when I came to speak with him regarding visits to my daughter Maria Müller, welfare office Innsbruck, Pradlerstraße 11, who was then in custody.
From my daughter I know that Mr. Andergassen granted her all relief that was within his power. Also, on the occasion of the death of my mother, who passed away on July 16, 1940, Mr. Andergassen took my daughter out of custody briefly at his own risk and accompanied her to the cemetery, and also enabled her to visit home, which he probably should not have been allowed to do."
​
This document is of an unimaginable dimension. Heinrich Andergassen, the same man who tortured prisoners and made them lie on the floor in the position of the cross, took a prisoner out of custody at his "own risk" so she could bury her grandmother. For Johann Müller and his daughter Maria, Andergassen was a benefactor. A man who acted humanely where he should not have been permitted to do so. 

Benefactor and Torturer: How a Gestapo Officer Arbitrarily Chose His Victims

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 sworn statement of Dr. Josef Fink from May 12, 1945 belongs to a group of documents that, at first glance, seem to exonerate Heinrich Andergassen—yet upon closer examination make his character all the more puzzling.
Dr. Fink, a PhD holder from Volderwildbad/Volders, was denounced in 1939 for a “derogatory remark” about the Nazi regime—first by Hermann Schlögl, an employee of the Bürgerliches Bräuhaus, and then by the waitress Kresentia Schwimmberger. Both accusations led to his arrest. The Malicious Practices Act under which his case was handled typically provided for draconian penalties, including long prison sentences or internment in a concentration camp.
Yet Fink’s case ended with only fourteen days of detention. And, as he explicitly states, this outcome was due to Criminal Commissioner Andergassen: he had treated the matter “benevolently and in my favor” and had “contributed significantly to the comparatively favorable outcome.”
At first glance, this document appears to portray Andergassen as an officer who showed leniency where possible—perhaps even a quiet opponent of the regime. But this impression is misleading.
For the same records that attest to Andergassen’s consideration for Fink depict, in other cases, a brutal interrogator who tortured prisoners, threatened them with transfer to concentration camps, and shamelessly abused his position of power. The lay brother from Martinsbühel, whom he forced to lie on the ground with arms outstretched; Dr. Ernst Verdross, to whom he extended a hand as a “friendly neighbor” while interrogating him as a Gestapo officer; the former concentration camp prisoner whom Andergassen had arrested again over a Corpus Christi procession—all experienced a very different side of the criminal commissioner.
So what do Dr. Fink’s words mean? Three possible explanations present themselves:

1. Arbitrariness as a system: Andergassen did not act according to principles, but according to personal sympathy or whim. Those he favored could hope for leniency—those he disliked faced the full severity of his power.
2. Calculated generosity: By showing leniency in certain cases, Andergassen may have sought to secure exculpatory statements for the time after the anticipated collapse of the regime. Fink’s statement from May 1945—immediately after the end of the war—would then be the result of a calculated strategy.
3. The mask of the benefactor: Andergassen may have been highly skilled at generating gratitude among his victims where outrage would have been more appropriate. The fact that he treated Fink “benevolently” may have meant salvation for Fink—but it does not alter the brutality he displayed toward others.

Particularly noteworthy is the timing of the statement: May 12, 1945, just four days after the unconditional surrender of the Wehrmacht. In those days, former Nazi officials sought to obtain exculpatory testimonies as quickly as possible—or survivors who had experienced acts of kindness felt compelled to express gratitude. Whether Dr. Fink knew what Andergassen had done to other prisoners is not evident from the document.
Thus, Fink’s statement is not evidence of Andergassen’s “decency,” but rather another piece of the puzzle in understanding a perpetrator who blurred the boundaries between good and evil, between benefactor and torturer, between neighbor and persecutor in a deeply unsettling way. It shows that Andergassen was not only a brutal interrogator but also a master of deception—someone who often left even his victims uncertain about who they were truly dealing with.
The document confronts researchers with the difficult task of enduring such ambiguities without smoothing them over. The fact that Andergassen showed leniency in one case does not make his brutality in others any less real. If anything, it makes him all the more unpredictable—and all the more dangerous.

(See blog post Heinrich Andergassen part II)