Let me try this, for all of you belonging to the "Michael-Was Justified" or the "Fredo Had To Go" school of thought.

And I'll address this specifically to Apple or SB, since I know that you both have children:

Suppose the following:

That you are wealthy, and you have a brother who is hard up for money, so helps to arrange for the kidnapping of your daughter, expecting to share in the ransom.

Fortunately, the plot goes awry, your daughter returns home safely and unharmed, and only two years later, and accidentally, you learn of your brother's complicity, although you have no evidence to present to law enforcement authorities.

Would you kill your brother?

I would say, "No", you wouldn't.

You certainly would guard yourself and your family against him, confront him with your knowledge of his duplicity, and have nothing to do with him ever agian, but I don't think you would kill him.

The reason is because you are both law-abiding citizens, and as horrible as a kidnapping plot by your brother against your daughter would be, you still would not kill the guy.

So here's my question:

Why, just because Michael is a Mafia chief and a murderer, and a career criminal, is it any more morally justifiable for him to kill his brother than it would be for you to?

Does the fact that he's a criminal already make it right, but in your case, since your're not, it would be wrong?

Because he has the nerve to do it, where you might only wish to, does that make it right?

Would you do it if you head the nerve to?

Yes, Michael Corleone's life was bound by a moral code which is different than ours.

And that certainly explains his actions in killing his brother, but it does not, IMO, justify them.

If you don't mind Plaw, I would like to add that the brother is mentally slow. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If Fredo was ruthless, cunning and smart, then I could understand Michael's decision to kill him. Not that I would agree with it, or say that he was justified in killing his brother, but I could certainly rationalize it and understand. But that was not the case here.

So in your hypothetical scenerio I think that it is very important to point out that your brother was mentally slow.


Don Cardi

Fredo was warned about taking sides AGAINST the Family in a very similar way to that after the confrontation with Moe Green. While Michael didn't specify that the next time he screwed up he'd be dead, I think the warning was sufficient. And even though it was several years later that he was approached by Johnny Ola, Fredo should've remembered this, instead of allowing his self-interests (something in it for him) to get in the way.

It was no longer a matter of 'keeping an eye' on Fredo. He had proven himself a risk to the Family one time too many.

Plawrence, I have to say that the 'family' scenario you suggest in a later post is quite ridiculous. I can't help wondering how you could presume to guess with either SB or I would say. But that aside.

As you say, "...Michael Corleone's life was bound by a moral code which is different than ours."

But so was Fredo's. He grew up and made a living in the same Family, the same business Michael did. And he made his choices knowing the consequenses if his brother ever got wise to him. And he suffered those consequenses, and Michael was COMPLETELY justified in ordering them.

Oh, and sure Fredo was still a loved brother & uncle. Didn't matter, nor should it have. The only family relation important to Michael was that of a 'loved son', which is why he waited until the death of their mother to have Fredo whacked. And he was right on both counts.

Apple

Al, I just love you. I knew we must be of the same mind.
And not to hijack the thread... BTW what is it about? Fredo didn't know! If he would do it again.

First of all, why is my scenario ridiculous?

There are for example, literally thousands of murders, etc., every day in this country.

And at least hundreds which involve one familymember killing another.

And probably in only a tiny fraction of these cases does a third family member take revenge against the family member who perpetrated the crime.

So why is my scenario ridiculous?

And I can presume to know what you both would say because I know you both - to the extent that I do know you - to be law abiding people.


As far as Fredo having been already "warned" by Michael against going against the family before goes, surely you are not comapred his publicly disagreeing with Michael with complicity in a possible assassination plot against him?

Surely you don't mean to imply that had Fredo publicly disgareed with Michael a second time, that that would have been grounds for his assassination?

Do you really believe that Fredo understood that if he ever went against the family again that it would be a fatal mistake? I don't believe so. First of all he was not smart enough to think that his own brother would kill him. And for that matter I don't believe that Michael's warning to him was one that resonated a death threat. At that point I still don't think that Michael was ruthless and cold hearted enough to even think of having his own brother killed. But that's for another topic.

Before the attack on Michael in Tahoe, when was Fredo ever a risk to the family? In front of Moe Green? I wouldn't call his trying to smooth things out between Moe and Mike a risk to the family.

There is no way, in my opinion, that anyone can hold Fredo to the same standards as Michael as far as knowing the consequences of the business that they were in. Fredo never had the privaledge of being tutored by his father, the way the Sonny and Tom did, and later on Michael. If anything Fredo was shielded from the realities of the business that his family was in. That is why he could not react quickly when his father was shot in front of him. And that is also why the shooters didn't even bother to take out Fredo during the hit on the Don, because it was probably common knowledge within the families that Fredo was not really part of the guts of the business, and therefore was not threat. I'm sure that Gatto, when conspiring with Barzini's people, assured them that Fredo was not a person to worry about. All Fredo was good for was to run a mickey mouse nightclub, to pick someone up at the airport. Even Vito, in his conversation with Michael in the garden, says "Fredo, well," motioning to Michael that Fredo was never cut out for the business.

There is no justification for killing someone like Fredo. Someone who was stupid enough to think that nothing would happen to Michael. Someone who only did it because he thought that finally, there would be something in it for him. That he could finally do something good in Michael and the rest of the family's eyes. I assure you that Fredo probably lived with the thought that the family looked down on him because he was unable to even hold onto his gun when Vito was shot, let alone fire a bullet. Dealing with Roth was Fredos way of redeeming himself in the eyes of his family. " Hey, you see? I'm smart, I COULD do things! I helped the family"

Again, IMO The only reason that Michael had Fredo killed was to assure himself and those around him that he was the almighty powerful Don who would not forgive or show any sign of weekness. It was to show the Roccos and the Neris that he was not one to ever be screwed with. It was Michael's way of showing all those under him how ruthless he was. It was a message to them all. "I even killed my own brother, so don't you even think about going against me!"
It was a show of strength. Michael used Fredo's killing as the prime example. Fredo became the sacraficial lamb.


Don Cardi

Because in your story I don't see you mention that my brother and I are members of a powerful organized crime family and that were it not for a split second of quick thinking I would have been riddled with bullets and the Family I was head of virtually destroyed due to my brother's 'complicity'.

Michael and Fredo were born and raised in, and now both made a living within a powerful organized crime family, a virtual empire. They were not members of an ordinary family, and were obviously not driven by ordinary family values.

So, the comparison you present to SB and myself regarding a kidnapping of our children is ridiculous. Aside from that, to assume that we wouldn't order our brother killed because the kidnapping plan 'went awry' means that you might also be suggesting that Michael shouldn't have had Tessio killed because after all, his plan to lead Michael into Barzini's assasination trap didn't work.

Guess he should've been let off the hook...for old time's sake.

Yes to both.

Apple

Whether a fatal mistake or not...he was clearly warned not to take sides against the Family again. Ever. That meant not only taking part in an assasination attempt of which he knew nothing...but to go against the Family in ANY WAY. By dealing with Roth and Ola he was consciously conspiring against his brother and his family for personal gain.


In Michael's eyes, his trying to 'smooth things out' was taking sides AGAINST the Family. Therefore, Michael considered him a risk and sufficiently warned him not to do so again. And if you want to use that particular term, then 'smoothing things out' was exactly what he was trying to do with Roth since he believed that story of Michael being 'tough on the negotiations'.

So yes, both times he proved a risk to the Family. The first time he was subdued, the second time he was punished.


Yeesh...I gotta go back to work. Good discussion though, I could go on forever. The dynamics between Fredo and Michael and Fredo's betrayal/murder is to me an inexhaustimve and extremely interesting subject.

Later...

Apple

More interesting than whether or not Signor Roberto's socks exactly matched his shoes?

I think Fredo would have done it again. He wanted to get Michael out of the way. Without Michael he might feel a sort of power. He might even feel respected. I think Fredo wants the power he couldn't receive and that drove him crazy. And he told Michael that that reason he did what he did was because there was something in there "just for him." Michael saw Fredo as unloyal so he just had to get rid of Fredo.

If Fredo of had done it once for that reason, he would definitely do it again.

Ooh - an actual debate on the Godfather!! It's been so long!!

First of all, Plaw, what makes you think that if my stupid and weak brother would've put my children at risk, I wouldn't have him killed?? I am, after all, Sicilian.

I think that the answer to your question can best be answered by a quote from the book. When Tom Hagen goes up to New England to visit Kay after she leaves Michael, she wants to know why Carlo couldn't be forgiven. He had, after all, stopped beating his wife, worked hard at the job the family gave him, and, by all appearances, had straightened out. And Tom Hagen's answer? "In this world, he could be forgiven." (I'm paraphrasing, by the way).

You cannot compare the two worlds. As Apple correctly said, both Michael and Fredo were raised in that world and had a grasp of the consequences. Why shouldn't Fredo have understood the possible consequences of his actions?? And why wouldn't Michael have acted as he did?? That's what happens to traitors in that world.

As for DC's comments, you are misundertanding my position on Fredo. You see him as weak and slow and someone to be pitied, a "sacrificial lamb". I don't. I see him as an envious and angry man who feels inferior to his younger brother. He is willing to put the family at risk to feed his own ego. IMHO, that makes him VERY dangerous.

As for Fredo trying to smooth things out with Moe Greene, which would not put the family at risk, I'm sure that Sonny believed the same thing when he tried to get some assurances from Sollozzo. And yet look what that did to the family!!

Good point.

I don't agree, though.

I believe in the power of forgiveness.

Could that possibly be because I have a load of crap that I need people to forgive me for?

If Michael counts that instance as one of the reasons why Fredo had to be eliminated then that is NO justification at all.

The fault here was with Michael. He and Tom go to Las Vegas, not even giving Fredo a prior briefing about the Family's plans to move to Nevada and buy out Moe Green. They don't even tell Fredo that Vito is semi-retired and that Michael is the de facto Don. Fredo is totally clueless. So when Moe Green reacts with shock and anger to Michael's proposal, Fredo is equally shocked. And it's no wonder to me that he tries to "smooth things out" between his boss -- a rather bullying boss who takes his frustrations out on him and "flies off the handle" -- and his brother. It's self-preservation.

If Michael had given Fredo a briefing and ample warning of what was going to happen in Vegas, and Fredo STILL sought to reconcile Moe and Michael, then I can perhaps see Michael pointing to that as an example of disloyalty. But Michael was the one who slipped up, not Fredo.
For aforementioned reasons, I don't believe he was a risk to the family the first time. So therefore, I really don't see that there was a first time.

He certainly was a risk in the Roth incident because of his gullibility, But if Michael's justification is "he betrayed the family too many times," then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. There was only one betrayal, and the results were not at all what Fredo intended.

But if Michael's justification is that Fredo's witlessness would endanger Michael again, I still don't think that's valid. Michael ordered Al Neri to watch over Fredo while their mother is alive. When if Mama lived to be 97? Would Michael have become tired of waiting and have killed Fredo anyway? No. So if he were willing to keep an eye on Fredo for a long period of time without killing him, why not just continue keeping an eye on him for the rest of his natural life? He didn't have to choose murder. There were other ways.

Plaw, now you paraphrased me paraphrasing The Godfather!!

I understand your belief in the power of forgiveness. However, nobody needed forgiving more than Michael Corleone, and he certainly wasn't a believer!!

I agree, Cristina.

But you know these gangsters.

This "Sicilian Thing" that's been going on for thousands of years. They must have their revenge.

And I'm sure no one would've minded waiting even if Mama lived to be 197.

Revenge, after all, is a dish best eaten cold.

Sorry, Cristina, but Fredo knew from the infamous Sollozzo meeting that you NEVER take sides with anyone against the family. He was there. He saw what repercussions that had on the Family. He knew it was dangerous to let anyone outside the family know if he was thinking something that went against the family. Although I don't consider his actions a betrayal, it showed that his stupidity, coupled with his eagerness to please, made him dangerous. After all, Moe Greene slapping Fredo around made the Corleone's lose face. Fredo's actions in Vegas were just another example of how he could be a detriment to the family rather than a plus.

Hardly grounds for killing the poor schlub.

No, it's not. However, it showed how truly clueless he was. If he was that eternally clueless, then he could easily be tricked again and made to betray the family - if forgiven.

Yes, Sicilian Babe's arguments are very good, as they support her position that Fredo conspired deliberately with Roth to kill Michael and that he would do it again.

I tried to bring her around to our side, but she just won't come.

But seriously, this is just me, but I'm kind of puzzled as to why someone would, or could, think that Fredo deliberately tried to have Michael killed after viewing --

1. the scene of bonding in Havana, where Fredo basks in being treated as Michael's confidant and partner.
2. the scene at Mama's funeral, where Fredo requests to see Michael. It seemed obvious to me that the rift between them was traumatic for him. When Michael enters the room to embrace him, Fredo tightens the hug like he's holding on to his life line. I could practically taste his relief that (in his mind) their brotherly relationship had been restored.
3. the late night phone call from Johnny Ola, during which Fredo says, "You guys lied to me." Isn't this the single most obvious clue that Fredo didn't know that the plan was to kill Michael? Doesn't it prove that Fredo was deceived?
4. Fredo's death, which I found unspeakably sad, because it felt like an innocent man had been murdered. Could anyone actually watch that and think, "Yeah, Fredo had it coming. He got his just desserts." I got the opposite feeling: that Fredo never meant to harm Michael at all, nor would he ever have.

Cristina, my feeling is that Fredo had to know, even if it was subconsciously, that his deal with Roth was going to mean some harm to Michael. Even if he didn't want to admit it to himself, he had grown up in that world. He knew what treachery was. He had witnessed his father's attempted murder. He KNEW, even if he didn't know. You know??

As for his feelings of guilt, I'm sure Fredo had them. Even Michael was capable of guilt and regret. But that doesn't mean he didn't put the family in danger and need to be eliminated.

First of all, whether Fredo was given a 'briefing' or not (which he was not entitled to anyway), if he had any brains he should have known to keep his mouth shut even if he didn't necessarily agree with Michael's plans to buy out Moe Green. He should have known that if Michael was there on behalf of the Corleone Family, then Michael was spaaking for their father and the Corleone Family. He should have known to keep his mouth shut, like Tom and Johnny did, let Moe storm out of the room and not try to override his brother right in front of everyon by suggesting that Tom the consiglieri (as far as he knew) contact The Godfather to see what else could be done. At that moment, was as careless as Santino had been during the Sollozzo meeting though luckily with less effect. He took sides against HIS OWN FAMILY, let the seams show, and therefore put it at risk. Maybe not short-term, but long-term risk. That is why he was warned right then and there by Michael to NEVER let it happen again. Let's not forget that it's revealed in GFII that Moe Green was a close friend of Hyman Roth. Long as we're all using our creativity, it could be assumed that Moe relayed this incident to Roth which planted the seed in Roth's head that the weak, stupid Fredo Corleone could be easily misled and swayed into a phony deal such as the one he was.

Second, it's doubtful that when deciding that Fredo must die...Michael thought back to that Moe Green conversation and decided that that, along with the Roth betrayal, was what would justify his ordering his brother's death. However (and again), remoreseful as he was and safe as he seemed within the cocoon of the Tahoe Compound, as content as he seemed taking his nephew on fishing trips...Fredo had proven one time too many that he was incapable of remaining loyal to his Family. Both his blood family and otherwise. He had to go.

And Sicilian Babe...it's nice to be in at least partial agreement with you on this subject. As you succinctly state...Fredo put the family in danger and NEEDED to be eliminated.

However as we'll probably forever disagree on whether Fredo knew he was about to die on that boat (which he didn't)...I have to say that I don't think for one second that he ever realized Roth had a hit planned on Michael and that he was assisting in making it possible.

Take care, all...!!!

Apple

That's so sweet. The power of forgiveness is nice, and for ordinary people like you & me it's probably the best way to go.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GANGSTERS HERE!!! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD OF ORGANIZED CRIME!! THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY PEOPLE, THIS WAS NOT AN ORDINARY FAMILY. FREDO WAS A TRAITOR TO HIS OWN BROTHER, DON CORLEONE, HEAD OF THE FAMILY...WHO HAD YEARS EARLIER WARNED HIM NOT TO TAKE SIDES AGAINST HIS FAMILY. FREDO IGNORED THAT WARNING FOR NOTHING LESS THAN HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.

And I'm sure to some degree, Michael DID forgive Fredo, since he even states that he knows Fredo was misled and lied to. I think he forgave him after being spoken to by Connie at their mother's wake.

But...that doesn't mean that, strictly in the business sense, he would not come to the decision Fredo Corleone had betrayed his Family and had to suffer the fate of all who had betrayed the Family before.

Another thing to consider...while the actual hit on Michael was unsuccessful, the attempt itself put into motion the entire set of events that became the rest of the movie. Having failed at killing Michael (both in Nevada and Cuba), Roth devised the setup of Frankie, which led to the Senate Hearings that again nearly brought Michael and the Corleone Family down and eventually resulted in Frankie's demise (Roth...he played this one beautifully). Fredo somehow knew about Questadt 'belonging' to Roth. He was in with them good, and though he was blissfully unaware of an impending 'hit' on his brother, and although Michael lived through it Fredo's alliance with Johnny Ola and Hyman Roth did ultimately cause much damage to the Family.

Fredo had to go. Michael was not only justified but really if he was to be an effective Don and protect his Family...he really had no other choice.

Apple

And with this post, you have just made our ( Plaw and I ) position about Fredo even stronger.

He was clueless. And if he was eternally clueless, then he could be easily tricked again.

Exactly SB. His being clueless is what allowed him to be tricked into believing that he would be helping Michael and The Corleone family by doing this one thing for Roth and Ola. Anyone with a half of brain would have seen what was coming a mile away, and would have said no way.

But as you have just said yourself, Fredo was clueless and had been tricked, and therfore there was absolutely no justification for Michael to have him killed.

Anyone with a heart would have realized that his clueless and stupid brother had been duped and never intended to betray him. And having the heart to see that would have made Michael realize that while his brother's stupidness and cluelessness was in itself a danger to Michael and the family, his brother was not really responsible for what he did.


Michael could have chose to take another path to make sure that his brother's inability to see a set up coming from a mile away would never happen again. He could have kept him under close scrutiny. But in Michael's mind, to allow Fredo to live would have been a sign of weakness to his enemies and anyone that may have been planning to turn on Michael.

So instead Michael chose to show that he would never allow anyone, even his own clueless and stupid brother to make him vulnerable to his enemies or his potential enemies.

Again, all Michael did by having Fredo killed was to show that he, Michael, would not allow anyone, blood relative or underling, to ever put him in a vulnerable postion. His message was very clear ; "The price for going against me is death, look at what I had done to my own brother." Look at Neri's face when Michael hugs Fredo and makes eye contact with Neri, telling him that it's now time to kill Fredo. Neri looks as though he is saying to himself " Wow, I can't believe that he is actually going to have me kill his own brother!"

Their world, or ours, Fredo was incapable of fully understanding what he was actually doing. Fredo was not smart enough to even think of the consequences.

There was no justification in having him killed.


Don Cardi

Sure he could have. But why should he? Why should he allow this traitor to live at his compound and be around his family, all knowing what he had done and what his actions had caused to happen. Why should a known traitor be kept under 'scrutiny' when there was no further reason for that person to remain alive? Would Michael have afforded that kind of 'path' to any other traitor? No.
The only different path he needed to take in this case was to not allow anything to happen to Fredo while their mother was alive. And his was for mama's sake, not Fredo's. For Fredo was nothing to him now. Not a brother or a friend. Nothing more than a traitor. Past and future risk. Had to be punished, had to go.

In terms of their business, completely justified.

Apple

Let's not get carried away here, DC

There was definitely resentment on Fredo's part towards Michael, and altho he may have bought Ola's song and dance that helping Roth would be "good for the family", Fredo had to know that he was acting in his own self-interest ("He said there was something in it for me - on my own") as well and quite possibly doing the wrong thing.

All I'm arguing is that he knew he screwed up, he was remorseful, and if properly supervised in the future, posed no threat, and therefore was killed needlessly.

Of course Fredo intended to betray him. If he didn't he would never have spoken to Johnny Ola, or would have informed Michael immediately that he'd been approached by Ola/Roth with regard to Family Business. Instead, he decided to work with them, without his brother's knowledge, for the vague promise of 'something in it for him'. Of course he intended to betray Michael.

What Fredo didn't intend was for Michael to be shot at as a result of his conspiring with Roth. His misfortune that he was stupid enough to be duped.

Apple

I beg to differ with you. I don't believe that by Fredo talking to Ola and Roth, that there was an intent of betrayal on his part. You need to keep in mind that The Corleones sent Fredo to Las Vegas. And while Fredo was in Las Vegas, he worked under Moe Green. And by working under Moe Green for all that time, Fredo had to have been exposed to Johnny Ola and Hyman Roth. Keep in mind that Roth was a business associate of Vito in the early years, so Fredo must have known him or of him from back then. Then with his being in Vegas with Moe Green, I am sure that Fredo was reaquainted with Roth and now also came to know Ola.

What I am trying to say is that it was not as though Ola and Roth were strangers to Fredo. It was not as though they were known enemies of the Corleones, at least not on the outside. So Fredo probably became comfortable with Ola, through Moe Green.

Therefore when Ola approchead Fredo about a deal that they were trying to make with Michael, and told him that things were not going as planned, Fredo trusted Ola because he was comfortable with him. He was convinced by Ola that if he did this favor for Ola, it would make the negotiations go smoother and that there would be something in it for Fredo.

I don't believe that Fredo approached Ola, or visa versa, on the blind, out of left field. Fredo was with Moe Green for a pretty long time, and through Moe he had to have been introduced to Ola at some point, and therefore he felt comfortable with Ola and probably trusted him.

Fredo never intended to hurt Michael or betray Michael. He was stupid enough to believe that he would be helping Michael and at the same time would be doing something on his own. Something that Michael would look at and be proud of him for doing. At least that is what Ola probably led him to believe.

And it is probably also safe to say that while Fredo was with Moe Green, he complained every now and then about his not being trusted or directly involved with the family buisness.

"I'm the older brother and my kid brother is running things now?"

I am sure that Green relayed these types of things to Ola and they knew that they could play on Fredo's unhappiness, and make Fredo believe that they were coming to HIM, not Mike, to do something to help himself and The Family.

Don Cardi

According to Fredo's account, he wasn't merely told that 'things were not going as planned'. He was told that Michael, his brother, Don Corleone...was being 'tough on the negotiations'. If he was told that his own brother was being tough on negotiations and they needed his help then by agreeing to help in whatever way he did, supplying whatever information he did...and all the while never mentioning to Michael, Tom or anyone in the Family that he was working and associating with these people...all the while anticipating something in it for him...then he was knowingly betraying his brother.

You don't have to knowingly plan someone's murder in order to be a traitor. Fredo didn't realize there was going to be a hit. Simply working with Roth/Ola based on the story he was given was Fredo's betrayal. Perhaps it's your good nature and understanding heart that's causing a mental block here, Don Cardi...but I honestly can't fathom how you can deny even this.

Apple

This has really become a two part question.

I agree with Apple and Sicilian Babe and disagree with Don Cardi. Fredo knew he was betraying Michael. I forgot where Cristina stands on this part of the question.

But I also agree with Don Cardi and Cristina and disagree with Apple and Sicilian babe. Things could have been arranged so Fredo posed no future threat.

Yes, he did intend to hurt and betray Michael. This intent is revealed during his rant in the boathouse, when he finally loses it about having been 'stepped over' by his 'kid brother'. He loved Michael, but also deeply resented him.

And you cannot possibly believe that he thought for one second that Michael would ever be proud of him for interfering in negotiations with Roth. He was being 'tough' for a reason...and even if that attempted hit had never taken place, Michael would most certainly NOT have been proud of his brother. And even Fredo wasn't dumb enough not to know that. If he really wanted to make Michael proud, he would have let him know the moment he was approached by Ola. Instead, he allowed his own self interests and jealousy to determine his actions.

Of course he intended to hurt and betray Michael.

And therefore he put the entire Corleone Family at risk.

And therefore, he eventually had to die.

And therfore, Michael was justified in having him killed.

Apple