Any one of those negatives could have happened without the prior positive.

I dont see the analogy those.... Roth was the battle and Fredo was the war?? etc... etc... etc...

The mafia business is not clean business, so there is an underlying contradict that power and family can not stay in the same ship. As long as Micheal has chosen the way, dark fate will haunt him till the end.

Michael was a machine at handling his work as the Don. He didn't allow himself to be consumed by emotion (until GFIII), but even then, the power, once again, had shifted. If he were running for office, he would gain the reception as Hillary Clinton (when several consider her to be very cold). In the mafia, however, charisma isn't as essential as it is in the political field.

The Corleone Family under Michael's control can be best summed up by this quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

"The aims of a great empire and the moral health of a people are incompatible."

But Joey Zasa said, "Its true I make a bella figura"

It is really surprising to me that you can't see the relation between these elements of the analogies. Fredo and Roth represent the two main facets of Michael's life, the business and the family. Michael came out on top in his business leanings, yet it cost him part of his blood family in each case. Michael was sure to win every battle he ever came across, but the war, the retention of himself as a family man, the keeping together of his family unit, was a total failure. very easy.

It's pretty clear: the firmer he grasped his illegal family, the more his blood family slipped through his fingers.

But he still was a good don.

He took the Corleones to the apogee of underworld power inthe US. So, I guess he was. But the Board members have never been quite content with judging Michael or Vito only by their crime success.

In the trilogy we do not get to see many "modern dons," and those we see aren't all that great. Barzini fancied himself the first "new" Don, and we all know what happened to him. And another major player who could be considered "modern" was Joey Zasa, and look what happened to him. Santino, of course was declared a "bad Don" by his own father, and the only other modern Don was Vincent, who like his uncle Fredo couldn't even run a decent body guard operation. So yeah, I guess I am saying the older guys were Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle, and the newer ones are A-Rod (Mr. June) Bobby Bonds and Mark McGuire.

But when we are talking the best don in business sense (as a don is a supposed to be head of a criminal organistaion where money is the most important thing with power) I think mike was better then Vito, Vito never went in to drugs that was a bad decision, never saw paulie Gattos betrayal and also sending Luca to his death.

Mike on the other hand was cold, smart and suspected everyone. Used people when he needed and always tried to stay a head of the game regardless of morals.

Don wise mike is better.

Not including part 3 as that wasnt needed.

On the other hand, Vito was never subjected to a Senate interrogation; he never had any high level member of his family betray him; and he never had to anticipate (let alone actually) murdering a member of his blood family.

Fredo in a mafia sense had to be killed as he couldnt take it that his brother was the don of the family.

Hermen roth was a much stronger enemy then the five families and had the power to turn Frankie aganist mike but mike was still ruthless enough to stay on top. If any of the things happend to Vito i bet he wouldnt be ruthless enough to deal with the things mike had to in part 2.

Not only that Fredo was unhappy with Vitos decision of stepping him over, if Vito had talked to Fredo which i think he didnt then the fredo thing wouldnt have happend. So in other words you can blame Vito to an extent of Fredo going against the family.

Mike was stronger and better don as he also adapted to the new way, i also think Vito being an old school mafiso wouldnt be able to do that.

I agree with what many have said. Micheal was a really good Don but he had lost the ability to open his heart and was far too controling. much of this has to do with the diffrence in the times. "things change" just like he tells his mother. Women no longer simply bowed down to their husbands, brotheers didn't always love and respect their brothers, and mafia loyalty was quickly eroding. He also had to create distance between himself and others in order to survive.I believe that mike earned a reputation for being cold in part due to the way he begins his term as don. With the aid of Vito he eliminates the other heads of the 5 Families as well as others like Moe Green. This earns him respect through fear. True he didn't have the heart of Vito but he was just as smart and much more ruthless. Micheal also had a good head for business and made the Family rich and respected. It would have been hard to fill the shoes of a great like Vito (as he states in II w/ Fredo) but Mike was easily one of the great Dons of his time.

Don Vito Corleone could justify in his mind why his criminal life style was necessary. Without him finding his "destiny" he would have been powerless, "dangling on the strings" himself. But he was comfortable with himself and remembered where he came from and that is where his true strength as a Don came from.

Don Michael Corleone never knew the powerlessness. He knew life, only from a position of strength and wealth. He never knew what it was like to be under the thumb. Therefore, his blind ambition was to free himself and the family from the illegitimacy. Don Vito knew that for Michael to be a success in the legitimate world he had to be kept clean, free from the family business. But he acted to defend his family by killing Solazzo and was sucked in. Michael's mistake was he didn't realize what a tangled web is weaved once he entered the illegitimate world and how impossible it would be to extract himself from it. His execution of the heads of the "Five Families" was,to me, not revenge but an attempt to spring himself and his organization from the web; to do away with the forces that would suck him back in.

Michael probably could have been the indisputable best Don, if he had resigned himself to a life in the illegitimate world. But that wasn't his nature and therefore, he was never comfortable with himself.

\
A perfect example of how he never really wanted "out," despite his words (and even intentions) to the contrary. Sure, he had the heads of the other families whacked prior to moving to Nevada. Then, when II opens, we see that he's still right in the middle of the New York rackets via Frankie Pentangeli, his underboss, and he's adjudicating a territorial dispute between Frankie and the Rosatos.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in," he complains in III after the AC machine gun attack--that occurred while he just happened to be presiding over a Commission meeting...

I think Mike truly wanted legitimacy but his greed overcame him and didn't allow it to happen.

How do you judge the goodness or badness, the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of a Don? We seem to be stuck mixing Michael's business and family. To be sure, they are entertwined probably in a way that the business and family of most,if not all, Dons are not.

In the Godfather "the business" is also "the family business."
So this is a hair you cannot split.