This was posted in the thread about Carlo and it spawned another thought. I know that in the novel the murder of McCluskey and Solozzo is pinned on the Bocchicchio clan member, but the Bocchicchio's are ignored completely in the morning aside from the line Clemenza gives about the hostage playing pinochle with his men.

My theory is predicated on the Commission simply using that as a means to an end. That is, it's no secret to the Barzinis, Tattaglias, Straccis and Cuneos that Michael was indeed the perpurtrator of the murders, but merely that after the years of bloodshed, if clearing Michael meant the peace then they would go along with it.

If all of this is true, then how does Barzini account from that when he underestimates Michael in the future? Unless, they believe that Michael was merely the trigger-man and that the operation to kill Solozzo and McCluskey was planned by Sonny and the capos.

I think that everyone would assume it was Michael. For instance, I don't see any reason why Barzini and Tataglia wouldn't know that Sollozzo had set the meeting with Michael.

I think you're right, they'd think he was merely the trigger man. I think Michael was underestimated as a Don -- for strategy and leadership -- more than for courage or street smarts.

Yes. Remember that even Tessio (in the novel) detects in Michael a force clevely kept hidden.

Yes. Michael was following Vito's advice to make his enemies think he was weak. In the novel's account of the war between Maranzalla and up-and-coming Vito, it says that Vito had a reputation only as "a parliamentary debater." Later, the other Dons gave Michael credit for "a bravura job on Solozzo and McCluskey" but think that his principal problem is that he "lacks force."

Yet it was Tessio who was ready to switch sides because he didn't believe enough in Mike. Why is it that Puzo kept saying how smart Tessio was?

I think Mike gets too much credit honestly of being clever. I mean Vito pretty much spells everything out for him before he dies. he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him. And also gives him infor on Barzini

In what scene does that take place?

Before vito dies when they are talking outside in the garden. remember "it just wasn't enough time Michael"

He never mentions anybody.

He doesnt mention the names but its not that hard to figure out lol. Mike knows who he is talking about

Vito says, "Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor." But, who else but Tess or Clem might come to him with the Barzini meeting? When Michael tells Tom that it's Tess, Tom replies, "I always thought it would be Clemenza." Pretty clear where everyone's thinking was going.

How about Carlo? Or Neri? or Rocco? Or Tom for that matter?

Exactly Turnball. what i love about the Godfather is taht they dont spell everything out for you but they still give you the answers. Right before that scene both tessio and Pete are complaining to Mike that Barzini is starting to squeeze them out so it had to be one of them. Rocco was a rising star so he had nothing to gain for being a traitor, neri we all know wouldn't switch sides so it had to be Sally or pete

Carlo wasn't inside the family business and had no upfront reason to have contact with Barzini. Michael crapped him up about being his "right hand man" in Nevada (where Carlo was born), but they weren't in Nevada yet. Though Barzini recruited him to set up Sonny, Barzini would be giving his trap away if he used Carlo to set up the meeting. Neri and Rocco were loyal to Michael and in any event wouldn't have logical reasons to have contact with Barzini. The "protocol" would be for Barzini to contact one of the caporegimes, or Tom. But in the novel, recall that Michael speculates on who Barzini would contact. "Someone like me," Tom muses. "No, you're too close to me," Michael replies, "and besides, you're Irish." "I'm German-American," Tom replies. "To them that's Irish," Michael answers. He also rules out Neri because "Neri was a cop."

Also i dont think Barzini even would know how high up Neri and Rocco were at the time, it was being made to look like Rocco was just another made man under Peter and like Turnbull said Neri used to be a cop, further adding to Barzini's thoughts that Mike was weak.

Good Point thats why it was suppose to be a secret regime

Barzini world never reach out to Neri, shows how progressive Mike's thinking was, he they are good for business thats all that should matter. I for one would rather my chief enforcer be a guy who accidently lost his temper and hurt somebody, not a heartless murderer.

I don't know.
1) I've always felt that Puzo over-stretched here Vito's abilities to foresee future events.
2) Sure, contacting one of Michael's capos could be one option for Barzini. But it was very risky. What if Tessio had pretended to agree with Barzini's deal but told Michael everything? Barzini could not be sure about that.
3) Also, it makes Vito almost godlike to foresee these kind of events in detail.
4) And if they knew Barzini would approach Clemenza or Tesssio, why wouldn't Michael and Tessio simply talk to them about the situation?

I think Vito is just supposed to understand that Barzini always works through a screen of somebody else. In the book, of course, they discuss the possibility of Barzini approaching Tom, Carlo, Neri or Rocco, and why they were unlikely candidates.

1)What do you expect he is the man character but he also is the longest term don in New York so he has seen everything, and can use his experience built over the years to go back over business dealing and politics of the past. He can go through every possible angle now more than ever that Mike is running the day to day operations. They discuss the possibility of everyone in the book.
2)This conflict was going on for a couple of years not just a couple of scenes like in the movie. Barzini had time to go back and fourth over intell collected by his inside man Carlo and look at action on the streets do determine which capo had the most discontent toward Micheal and the family. Obviously he do not just look at the family one day and say i think that guy will turn on Mike.
3)See number 1
4)Micheal was bringing up new guys to move with him to Vages, so this means someone has to be left in charge in New York. By allowing Barzini to attempt a inside move in his family through a man that should be one of Mike's most trusted men of the old guard, he is letting Barzini and the capos make the decision for him, who ever stays loyal when it seems like the dumb thing to do will be Mike's man in NY.

By the way i just wanted to say these statement are my honest opinion, im sorry if i sound like a know it all but i will have an opinion on just about anything when it comes to the godfather, i answer everything because i enjoy the conversation so much, i have been looking for this forum for a long time and want to thank the makers and posters of the forum for making such a great site!

I definetly think Mike is overrated by some people. now i'm not saying he wasn't a capabale don but the guy did make some blunders and was lucky. I mean if vito doesn't tell him that one of his two capos will turn on him mike probably dies. also Roth pretty much outsmarts mike the whole movie in Part 2

In part 2 Mike allows Roth to move freely so he doesnt think Mike suspects him, but he knows Roth is his enemy the whole time. Mike's only goal in part 2 was to find out who betrayed him(and trying to go legit), once he had done that he eliminated his enemy.