Ok. we all know that Micheal doesn't have Stracci and Cuneo killed in the Godfather novel. My question to you all is: Why?

I mean I figured he would have them killed becuase they might want to retaliate for the deaths of Barzini and Tattaglia

Also why do you think that Cuneo and Stracci didn't start a war with Mike after what had happened to Barzini and Tattaglia? Do you think they wanted to stay neutral or they must have really kpt their word about the peace that Vito made in the Council meeting?

May be Michael didn't feel the need to kill them because they were of no account, of no force whatsoever.

I dont think michael saw stracchi and cuneo as enough of a threat to justify killing, after all, he was trying to make the corleones the most powerful family in teh USA again, and the stracchi and cuneo families would probably not have sufficient power to challenge him

In the novel, Michael didn't have to kill Cuneo and Stracci because they weren't a threat to him, and he may have been trying to prove a point: that he was a "just" Don, a "man of honor" because he wreaked vengeance only on those who harmed his family. And he made a more subtle point: by killing Barzini, he was showing Stracci and Cuneo that he knew who was behind Tattaglia, even if they didn't. Moral: don't f**k around with Michael Corleone.
In the movie, killing them off made a much more dramatic climax. And if he hadn't knocked them off, what would the Senator have asked him in GFII: "Were you responsible for the murders of the Two Families in 1950 [ sic ]?"

I agree, I think in the movie the killings of Stracci and Cuneo were done to illustarte how brutal Michael had become. But Turnbull, the Chairman or Questadt could have said, "Were you responsible for the murders of the heads of the Barzini and Tatagglia Families in 1950?"

Sorry for mentioning it in the book section.

But were the families wiped out in 1950?

I thought that they weren't whacked until after
Vito died and that was 1954 wasn't it?

Confused.

Grazi.

Yes, but they probably would have had difficulty pronouncing their names. "The Five Families" makes them sound (to their constituents) like they really know something about the Mafia.
Wiseguy: you hit on one of the big mistakes in GFII. The Great Five Families Massacre occurred in 1955, not in 1950, as the Senator said (attest Vito Corleone's headstone in the burial scene). Thus Michael was really guilty of only four counts of perjury: he didn't lie when he denied that he was "responsible for the murder of the heads of the Five Families in 1950."

See? You thought you were confused and it turns out your a genius!!!

(Thanx for your congrats.But I still wanna push da button )

A Man Of Honor another reference to the Corleone-Bonanno connection lol

Yes, 1950 was an error on the part of the actor, it SAID 1955 in the Script!

BTW, what were the five counts?

1. Are you son of Vito Corleone? YES. TRUTH!

2. Did he use alias GODFATHER? No, Godfather was a nickname, he didn't refer to self as Godfather. TRUE (Sketpical about Bonasera scene "You don;t even call me Godfather"

3.Are you head of most powerful Mafia Family in America? NO. TRUTH. A) He was most powerful in NY, not necessarily the country b) he was spending time in Puerto Rico/Hyman Roth may have been most powerful c) Organized Crime Members don't refer to their Families as MAFIA, OR Cosa Nostra, etc.

4. According to Witness (Cicci) were you directly responsible for murders of Police Captaina dn Virgil Sollozzo in 1947? NO. TRUTH In the eyes of the law it was Felix Bocchicchio who committed the murders, he confessed and was killed for his crimes (Read the Novel). And anyway it happened in 1945 or 1946. Cicci perjured HERE!

5. In 1950 did you devise the murders of Five Families to consolidate your power? NO! TRUTH! The murderes happened in 1955, he MAY have devised them in 1950, BUT he did it to avenge his father, not to consolidate power!

6. Do you own Controlling Interest in three MAJOR HOTELS in Las Vegas. NO. TRUTH! He owns SOME stocks not necesarrily controlling, prhaps Fredo was controlling owner. LEGALLy, wasn't Klingman an owner? Plus were they MAJOR Hotles? and he has stock in other legal companies such as IBM.

7. Do you have hotels in Arizona or control Arizona gambling? (Bonanno lol) NO! Truth! Nothing led us to believe Arizoan was mentioned in whoel Series, movies, OR Books!

8. Do you control gambling, Narcotic in NY? NO. TRUTH!

8 Questions, if you're really looking for Perjury you could say 1. he' son of Carmella Corleone NOT Vito, 2. Vito DID refer to self as Godfather (Bonsera), 3. He is head of Mafia Family, 4. Mike was solely responsible for McCluskey murders, 5. Mike did kill heads for Power (all 5, rather than revenge for TWO!), 6. he DOES own Hotels, 7. he does have access to Arizona, 8. he Controls Pentnageli, who controsl Gambling in NY.

But FIVE counts of Perjury!

How about 1 or 2 counts 3. and 6.!

anyway, apparently Puzo had plans for Cuneo and Stracci in GF2, but FFC killed them off, and relaced them with Rosatos, and forgot about them too, PLOT HOLE!!!! ha. Oh well, I liked Cuneo!

Fine analysis, Ricardo! Thanks! I'd just add this thought:
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson: A perjury charge is the last refuge of a weak prosecutor. The Senate committee holding the hearings wasn't a court of law, therefore they never could have tried Michael for any of the things they accused him of during their interrogation of him. What's more, even if a real court took up those charges, they'd have had to get more than just Frankie to corroborate the charges against Michael in order to convict him--assuming they found and seated a jury not so scared that they would have convicted him.
But perjury's an easy case: it would require only Frankie's word against Michael's. The law would say, in effect, "I don't have to PROVE that you MURDERED so-and-so, Michael Corleone--all I have to do is show that you LIED UNDER OATH about having committed murders, because I have one witness who said he got an order from you." Each count of perjury carries a five-year sentence. And we can bet they leaned on Frankie to embellish his testimony, to try to ride roughshod over all the distinctions Ricardo made in his excellent analysis. All in all, it's a damned lucky thing Michael found Vincenzo.
BTW: Richard Nixon "made his bones" on Alger Hiss in 1948-9 via a perjury charge. The House Un-American Activities Committee couldn't prove that Hiss was a Communist, but Nixon, a committee member, nailed him for lying under oath about not having previously met Whittaker Chambers, the star witness against Hiss. (Sorry to be pedantic, but that Senate Committee scene has strong overtones of the Hiss case.)

Ricardo? You say that Puzo had plans for Cuneo and Stracci for GF2. What was it? What roles were they supposed to play?

Only Puzo knows for sure, but i figure they would have been the Rosatos, and moved in on Clemenza once Mike left NY. Clemenza would have taken the stand against Mike, and Cuneo and Stracci would have died in the end with Roth, Clemenza, and Fredo.

It would have been interesting!