Of course it is personal. Roth set out to avenge Mo Green. He could have made more money with Michael than he could have without him.

As for Michael... there is no way it was only about business. Sicilians have a long memory.

Agreed, Michael was patient but vengeful, hitting Fabrizio many years later was personal...

As Michael states in the novel: "Tom, don't let anybody kid you. It's all personal..."

I think Roth was truthful when he told Michael: "So when he [Moe Green] turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen...I didn't ask who gave the order because it had nothing to do with business."

I think Roth wanted Michael dead because Michael had been horning in on his gaming empire ever since he returned from Sicily. By II, Michael was angling for Roth's Havana holdings. Michael had made it clear that he wanted Roth out, one way or another. I think Roth thought of whacking Michael as a business necessity if he were to remain in the casino business.

Maybe I'm in my dotage, but I don't remember where Michael made it clear he wanted Roth out. He sought Roth's permission to move Klingman out, though. I thought Roth was more into symbiosis, as "he always made money for his friends."

Even earlier on, Michael was protective of Roth, as evidenced by forcing Pantangeli to make peace with the Rosatto's. I think Michael's change came when someone tried to have him killed.

Roth saying "he let it go" was like Vito saying that he wouldn't be the one to break the peace. Roth let it go for the moment, and Vito knew Michael would do the avenging.

Also, killing Fredo was personal. There were other ways to handle it if it had only been about business.

MICHAEL: Just go along as if you know nothing. I've already made my move.
FREDO: What move?
MICHAEL: HYMAN ROTH will never see the New Year.

[/quote]

MICHAEL: Just go along as if you know nothing. I've already made my move.
FREDO: What move?
MICHAEL: HYMAN ROTH will never see the New Year. [/quote]

But that was after Michael had figured out that Roth was behind the attack. Had Roth not been so vindictive, they could have been BFFs.

Good question.
The first thing we see Michael do after Sicily is to move Moe Green out of his hotel. IMO, that was the opening shot in Michael's intent to dominate Nevada gambling. I have to believe that Roth, as Moe's best friend, had a piece of that hotel. By GFII, Michael already owned or controlled three Nevada hotels, was angling for a piece of a fourth, and was angling for Roth's Havana casinos. What would that have left Roth with?



Short answer: because he thought that, by supporting the Rosatos against Pentangeli at Roth's behest, he'd be making Roth more amenable to the Havana deal.

Longer answer: why would Roth--who lived in Miami and had business interests in Nevada and Havana--interest himself in a petty quarrel between the Rosatos and Pentangeli? Because Roth intended to have Michael whacked, and by putting the Rosatos in place of Pentangeli, Roth would neutralize the Corleones' NYC muscle. Michael should have questioned Roth's advocacy of the Rosatos, but I think his greed for the Havana deal blinded him. If he did question it, Roth might have replied, "Look, Michael, this is an old debt I owe the Rosatos. Just go along--it'll be good for our deal."


I'm not denying that Roth would have felt some personal satisfaction in having Michael killed because Michael had Moe killed. But I think Roth wanted Michael dead for business reasons: he wanted to stop Michael from forcing him out of the gaming business.


GFIII supports you. In his confession to Cardinal Lamberto, Michael says, "I had my brother killed--he injured me." Arguably, the injury was long past by the time Michael had Neri whack Fredo. But, after Fredo's vicious outburst in the boathouse, Michael had reason to believe that Fredo had deep resentments that might surface at any time. A "business" reason: Michael had to show those around him, and others (potential enemies) that he never gave a traitor a pass.

TB, which of the above is your post?

Tried to fix my post above. My reply to the first quote starts with "Good question."

TB,
You make many excellent points.

One piece of data that we don't have is the state of the relationship between Moe Green and Roth. If Michael took Moe's place, it didn't necessarily diminish Roth's part of the action. It just substituted one person for another. One could argue that Michael might have been a stronger ally than Moe could have been. Roth looked to others to provide the muscle. It appears that Moe didn't have any, and the Rosattos were too far away to provide some help to Roth in Nevada, so he had to go along with the plan.

In a scale of raw profitability, it is hard to say which one is better... Havana or Las Vegas. Certainly the government in Nevada was more stable.

The Corleone's and Roth had a long history. It appeared that Michael genuinely respected Hyman until it became clear that he was the one causing the trouble.