Of all of the scenes in the Godfather Part II, my favorites are Michael's discussion with Tom, Al, and Rocco about killing Roth, and Roth's assassination. These two scenes have so many layers of subtext, and I will examine a few of them. First the discussion scene, Michael's learns that Roth will be arriving in Miami, and he will be taken into custody by the police, the FBI and custom agents. Michael wants Roth to be assassinate in public in front all of these lawmen. Hagen says that it is impossible that "it would would be like trying to kill the President; there's no way we can get to him." Michael's response to Hagen is perhaps one of the most chilling lines ever utter in all of cinema "Tom, you know you surprise me. If anything in this life is certain - if history has taught us anything - it's that you can kill anybody."
This exchange between Tom and Michael can be interpreted in many ways. First, Michael's response can be view as literal because throughout history there have been examples of people who no matter how high and mighty they are have have been killed by low and weak. Second, Michael's response could be interpreted in something much more bigger then killing Roth. Coppola using Michael and Tom to subtly hint at the assassination of President Kennedy. Coppola is implying that a conspiracy could have murder the president. Coppola knew that even in the early 1970's Conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination were believe by many Americans, and Coppola may have used that belief to implied a conspiracy. However, the scene itself is perhaps more then an implied suggestion of Coppola to hint to conspiracy. Michael's is surround with his most trusted men, men would never betrayal him and who will never tell their secrets to anyone. This scene show that there probably was a been conspiracy, but it might not have been as big as most of the public would believe. It might have been a few men, some rogue element in the FBI, CIA, etc lead by a Michael Corleone like figure that conspire to murder the president and succeed. This connection to the Kennedy assassination is even more implied with Roth's assassination. The scene is very similar to how Lee Harvey Oswald was assassinated in the basement of the Dallas Police Department surrounded by dozens of officers and patrolmen. Roth before he is shot mention that he want to vote in upcoming presidential election another implication to the assassination.

Oddly enough, that upcoming presidential election was the one in which JFK was elected. The rest of this would've been an anachronism if it connects to Kennedy as you claim. (FWIW - I think that line about history teaching us that anyone could be killed is definitely a reference to JFK, but its ahead of its time).

Somewhat related - there's a reference in one of the early scripts of Part II to Kennedy Airport. It was, of course, called Idlewild at that time (before JFK was assassinated).

As great as Part II was, I've always thought the whole story was rushed in order to get the film made, and as a result of that "rushing" some sloppy mistakes were included. Your theory about FFC including the feeling of the time when the movie was made (in the early/mid 70's) is valid, even if it reflects on a decade earlier.

You can certainly make a connection between Roth returning to America "to vote in the Presidential election" (1960 election), his assassination and JFK's assassination. Probably FFC intended us to make that connection.
But I find Michael's statement, "If history has taught us anything it's that you can kill anyone" more connected to what he told Kay in GF when he wooed her in New Hampshire. Michael had said that his father was "no different than any other man with responsibilities toward others." Kay replied that "Senators and Governors don't have people killed." Michael said, "Now who's being naive...." Right there, we had Michael's rationale for "legitimization"--he and his father were behaving no differently than the pezzanovanti in politics. And that's exactly what he did when he ordered Roth's murder.

Given the uncertain timelines that are characteristic of the Trilogy, I don't think you can assume that Roth is returning to America in the early 60s (he was turned away by Israel in 1971).

Michael's reference to history's lessons about killing anyone could be to Lincoln, Garfiled, and McKinley, and the near assassination of Jackson and Truman or, for that matter, various Mafia Dons like Anastasia.

It's amazing how we all have different ideas, thoughts and takes on many scenes and lines in the trilogy. That's what makes this trilogy one of the best in history!

I've always taken what Michael says to Tom in that scene as a reminder to Tom that at one time, a young man named Michael, who had absolutey no involvement with the family business, came up with this idea to kill a Police Captain and a mob backed Drug Lord. And those who were involved in the family businss laughed at him, basically telling him that it was impossible to kill a police captain and get away with it. Then after some convincing those same 'experienced mob experts' realized that the kid actually had a good idea, and agreed to put the plan in motion, and the family was saved.

In other words, without coming right out and saying it, Michael's "If anything in this life is certain - if history has taught us anything - it's that you can kill anybody." to Tom was his way of saying to Tom, "Remember what we once pulled off to save this family?"

That's what I always thought that Michael was reminding Tom of.

Could be, but I think it's more probable that Michael's statement had a broader historical scope to it, especially since, prior to that statement, he expresses surprise at Tom.

That's exactly why I think that he expresses 'surprise' at Tom!

"You surprise me Tom! We pulled something off many years ago that was unheard of! OUR history has taught us that we can kill anybody! We did it once and we can do it again! Right Rocco?"

Perhaps he said it making it appear as though he was making a much broader reference. But I believe that his underlying message was to reference what they were able to do once before, more than anything else, without coming out and actually saying it.

At least that is what I always took from that scene.

No question FFC had JFK in mind even though the scene took place before JFK was elected. As others havbe pointed out history does prove that "you can kill anyone." But in this particular scene someoone says to kill Roth would be as tough as killing "the president."

Also, Tom was involved in any number of murders, so the reference wasn't to that. That Tom was so knowlegeable about history is what I think underlies Michael's "surprise" reference.

Refresh my memory here olivant. Where is there any indications made in the GF movies that tells or shows us that Tom is SO knowledgable about history?

And if anything , it would be BECAUSE Tom was involved in the planning of so many murders that Michael would be surrised that he, Tom, would make the statement that he makes about Roth.

Well, this is an interesting nuance:
When Michael said he was "surprised," I think he was being sarcastic. He could have been referring to the fact that Tom was an educated man and should have learned something of world history. Or he could have been referring to the many murders Tom was involved in--including McCluskey's, when Tom had said that the Corleones would "become outcasts" if they whacked a police captain, who was (according to him) "invulnerable." Nasty business, emphasized by the smirk on Neri's face when Michael tells Tom that he can "take your wife, your family and your mistress, and live in Vegas."

Al Neri always seems to have that smirk of satisfaction when he sees Michael talking down to someone or he just did a hit. by the way I agree with turnbull is Michael was kind of referencing a little bit to the fact that they have indeed carried out quite some big hits before in the past. The hit on the heads of the five families in Part 1 was not an easy task, as it required great coordination and execution. Also, never before was New York city police captain was gunned down before.

I hope you two can reason together, and as a reasonable man I ask you to do what you can to see one another's point of view.
You both make good points, and DC I would cite to you Tom's conversation with Frankie about how Frankie was always a student of history, how he (like Clemenza) thought Hitler should not have been appeased, and how Frankie devised the family power structure along the lines of the organization of the Roman Empire. This shows Tom knew as much history as Frankie.

The way in which Rocco lunged forward and shot Roth too reminded me of Jack Ruby and the Oswald murder.