Ya think ... ???

In fact, neither was Vito there at the homecoming dinner where Carlo expressed his dismay to Sonny & Tom at not having a bigger role in the Family. Remember also, it was Vito's order (on the day of the wedding) not to give him one.

It might be safe to guess that Carlo's discontent was well known within the Corleone Family.

Like I said...they DISCUSSED, PLANNED for months, probably more like years....prior to the moment when Carlo was named their man in Vegas.

Apple

yeah, yeah, yeah. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

I just saiud it cos some people suggested that Vito DIDNT know about Carlo

Mike was not planning to strike after Vito died. Even if Vito was alive Mike would still have carried the plan. Vito would just have no part of it

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

However the fact that Vito DID die seemed to make it all the more seemless; less complicated, as now Michael truly was Don Corleone and not running the Family under the shadow (or advisement) of his father.
I suppose Michael would've taken all responsibility for breaking the peace but many may have guessed that Vito had assisted in the planning (which he did).

Except for the killing of Carlo, which I believe as did Connie that Michael would not have carried out until after Vito was gone.

So, had Vito not died and Michael STILL carried out the assasination of the Heads of all the Families, what does everyone suppose the reaction or backlash (if any) would've been? Would it have been the same, not a peep from anyone and all bow down to the all powerful Michael Corleone? Or would another war have started?

Just wondering...

Apple

Well Apple

in the novel, after the massacre, Mike 'released the hounds' on the rest of the caporegimes and such. He had buttonmen killed, and many caporegimes from the Barzini and Tattaglia families went over to the Corleone side when they realized how fruitless it would be to fight back with no leader.

"Can't beat'em, join'em", ya know?

In the end, it seemed everyone bowed down to Michael Corleone.

You make some good points apple. But I think Carlo was gonna get it whether Vito died or not. Connie believes that he would have stopped him. I don't think he would. Sonny's death had to be avenged

damn right it did, a sisters husband is never as important as you're own brother

You make a good point, too. However by the time of Carlo's death it has already been several years since Sonny's murder. This might indicate that as long as he remains comfortably a member of the family, there is no big hurry on serving Carlo his just desserts. In fact the longer the wait, the more sweet the revenge.

I think if Vito had lived another five years, so would have Carlo, working cozily in Vegas while all the time his eventual fate awaited. Michael may have wanted to whack Carlo as soon as it was clear he set Sonny up...but could've been talked out of it & told to wait by Vito, who may not have wanted to be involved in making his only daughter a widow. Patience was a key in Vito's world, and I would guess it became one in Michael's as well.

Just a theory.

Apple

Its a good theory.

question how long was it between the funeral and the baptism? then we'll know just how quickly Mike acted in getting Carlo after Vito went

I would guess it's not too long a time between the funeral and baptism. We know Connie has already had her baby at the time of Vito's death. Even assuming the family had a mourning period before the christening, it probably took place within 6-8 weeks at the most.

Apple

Vito would def. have had Carlo killed, after all he helped kill his son.

Good theory. But still I don't see carlo being alive after the day of reckoning whether Vito lived to move to Vegas or not.

Exactly what do you mean by 'day of reckoning'?

Of course Michael would never confront Carlo about it until he intended to kill him. There's no way you could possibly think he'd get Carlo to admit his guilt, then send him off to Vegas and out of the family business and then wait a few years to do him in....!!!

Of course Carlo couldn't live after the 'day of reckoning'. That's why it had to wait until Vito was gone.

Apple

I think Michael would not have killed Carlo until Vito died. If you notice, Michael didn't do anything drastic until Vito died. I believe that as long as his father was alive, he thought that Vito would always be breathing down his neck, making sure Michael never messed up. Even though I don't think Vito was trying to supervise him-we learn that he does support whatever Michael does when the whole "Tom-your out" scene takes place-but I believe that Michael was so independent, he couldn't really go head strong until he knew he wouldn't be judged.
Maybe that was his way of making sure he would never disappoint his father, as we all know Michael tried his hardest to live up to Vito's expectations and rightfully so.

Nah I don't agree with that, I'd say that he waited for Vito to pass away so that he lived the rest of his life without trouble. And Vito knew this as well. Then after the funeral they would get rid of the other heads of the five families

What I meant by Day of Wreckoning? When Mike ordered the killings of the Heads of the 5 Families as well as Carlo, and Tessio. Whether Vito was alive or not this was going to happen. Mike waited long enough and the time had to come.

Maybe so for the killings of the Family Heads...not so for Carlo & Tessio.

Furthermore, I do not think Tessio/Barzini would've approached Michael for that 'meeting' until after Vito had died.
Per the statement made by Vito at the Family Heads meeting (the ONLY time at that meeting he came raised his voice and exhibited anger)...if any harm were to come to Michael once he returned then all agreements for 'peace' would be null and void. Barzini would not have been stupid enough to break the peace while Vito was still alive.

So if Tessio did not turn traitor until after Vito's death...then he would not necessarily have been killed on that 'Day of Reckoning' had it taken place prior to Vito's death (which I still and not convinced it would have).

Remember, it was Michael, not Vito who was underestimated.

Apple

The question of how the peace between the families and Mike was worked out is a tough one.

The book and movie make it look like they other living capos's from the other families were so afraid of Mike they fell in line. Again this is fiction so it could have been that way.

If we put it in a real mafia context, Mike would have reached out to friendly capo's in the other families and nade accords with them beofre the hit to ensure a smooth transition of power.

Not unlike what Barzini tried to do with Tessio.

Apple? Barzini already broke the peace by sending his people to take over Corleone Family territory in BK which Tessio rules. And this was while Vito was alive.

Oh, sure, B-of-B, I guess so...if you want to call that 'breaking the peace'.

Personally I never thought of it that way.

By Barzini breaking the peace I was only referring to him having Michael killed; the only thing which Vito made clear he would not stand for. So still, the betrayal of Tessio to set up Michael for assasination would not have taken place until after Vito's death.

If you want to get technical though, I suppose you're correct that Barzini, by '..sending his people to take over Corleone Family territory...' would be considered breaking the peace.

A move which apparently Vito and Michael expected or at least were not disturbed by...hence their calm reaction and orders to Tessio and Clemenza to take no acton until after the move to Nevada.
They knew someone within their Family would turn traitor...they only had to wait to find out who it would be.

Apple