Does anyone else believe that Michael was wrong in having Fredo killed?

I think that Fredo was genuinely sorry for what he had done. Everyone insisted that Fredo was childlike, and this was the prefect example. He didn't realize the terrible consequences of what he had done until it was too late.

The fact that he waited until their mother had died was another indication of just how wrong this was. Their mother and Don Vito never (of course) would have gone along with the killing of Fredo, dispite his betrayal. The differences in their ability to forgive is what led to Vito's love from his family and friends, and in contrast Michael's isolation.

Krlea,

As you'll find out, we've had this discussion numerous times. Many feel Michael indeed "had" to kill Fredo. Fredo betrayed him and Michael had no choice but to kill him. From Michael's standpoint it was the only choice.

However, I am not one of these people. I don't think Michael "had" to kill him. I too agree that Fredo was genuinely sorry and also that he was like a child in many ways. I think too, most agree that this is something that Vito would not have done or approved of, but that is the difference between the two, as you implied in your post.

Yet, the killing of Fredo did make the impact of the story much more interesting and shocking, thus showing just how despicable Michael was.

TIS

If you're looking at it in terms of the only thing that made it wrong was that Fredo was his brother...then NO, it wasn't wrong. The fact that they were 'brothers' didn't prevent Fredo from committing the betrayal in the first place. Regardless of whether or not he knew it was going to be 'a hit'.

And this makes a difference because....????

Allowing Fredo to live until the death of their mother was for HER sake, not Fredo's. Michael did not want his mother to suffer the loss of another son. This indicates in no way, whatsoever that he was wrong to have Fredo killed. Had this been any one else, I doubt Michael would've waited for the death of the mother.

First of all, their 'mother' played no role in the making of these decisions. I would guess she probably never knew of Fredo's betrayal in the first place.

Second, we really cannot say whether Don Vito would go along with or do the same think. Because Vito never had to deal with the betrayal of a brother.

Fredo had to go.

Apple

PS - Y'know, this topic used to annoy me. But lately I'm really beginning to enjoy whenever it comes up.

This is where I disagree. The only reason I feel the hit was wrong was because it was his own brother. As I previously stated Fredo was truly sorry for what he had done and the difference was that Michael could have had the love of his brother instead of dying alone, alienated from his family and haunted by the ghosts of his past.

Yes it was for his mother, but it is also indicative of Michael's guilt. He knew killing his own brother was a sin even he coulden't forgive himself for. He certainly didn't wait until Connie died until he killed her husband and the father of his own godchild. He knew Fredo would never betray him again so where is the point in killing him?

Yes Don Vito did not have to deal with the betrayal of his brother, therefore I look at the next worst case scenario of which was the killing of Santino. When Tom tells the Don about this, his reply was "...No acts of vengeance, the war stops now." It shows me that Don Vito was able to, for a brief time period, overlook the massacre of his oldest son for the better good of everyone involved. He was able to separate "business from personal." No matter how many ways you flip flop it around, Fredo was Michael's brother and therefore it is always personal.


Sorry if my answers seem half finished. I'm at work so I can't really spend too much time on it.
I also want to apologize for asking a repeat question. As you can tell I am new here so I didn't realize it would annoy people. It won't happen again. ~Kristen

The fact that they were brothers was not enough of a reason to allow him to live. And as Michael had clearly stated in their final meeting at the boathouse, Fredo was no longer anything to him, not a brother nor a friend.

That embrace at their mother's wake was more of a display than a reconcilliation on Michael's part, since we know that he still planned to have Fredo killed...and the two could never again have had a real relationship as brothers.

We know he felt 'guilt', and wanted to spare his mother the pain. This does not mean that in terms of the business they were in, that he was 'wrong' do have Fredo killed. Because he wasn't.

Sparing your sister the loss of a husband (or your nephews the loss of a father) is completely different than sparing your mother the loss of a son. Furthermore, when Carlo fingered Sonny for Barzini, he was not clearly not interested in the feelings of his in-laws. There was something in it for him. When Fredo set up Michael for Roth
he was clearly not interested in what might happen to his brother. There was something in it for him.

No, he didn't know that. And that was the point in killing him. After what had happened, how easily he had been duped...Michael knew he could never really trust Fredo again.

Those of us who are still grasping at this 'brother killing brother' thing must understand that in this type of life led by Michael, Fredo, Carlo, etc....blood and family relations play little role in the business end of things. If you betray, and your betrayal is discovered, you pay the price.

Not good enough. If he was never betrayed by a brother, you cannot assume how he would've handled the type of situation Mike had to deal with.

And again, you can certainly say that in some part it was 'personal', since he waited until after their mother's death and that was the one way in which he took the fact that they were brothers into consideration.

But it still doesn't mean it was 'wrong'.

Fredo HAD to go...as did Carlo before him. Except for the fact that Michael & Fredo shared the same mother, there was to be no difference in the fate suffered by each of them.

Apple

Krlea

Please don't apologize for asking that question. There is no reason for you to do so. There are many questions that get asked many times from our new people. You have know way of knowing that, unless you go thru every single thread. Besides we always welcome new views/opinions. Just don't want you to feel that you need to refrain from asking a question for fear of it being a repeat. So fire away!

TIS

Sorry...I want to agree w/ TIS that there is NO reason to apologize and I hope I didn't imply that you should by my mentioning this has come up before.

I truly have come to enjoy this topic because nobody has yet come up with a valid reason why Fredo should have been spared simply because he happened to be Michael's brother.

Best,
Apple

IMO - Fredo betrayed Michael and it was not the first time and if he lived, it would not be the last. Someone else would of gotten Fredo sucked in and the same thing would of happened and this time gotten Michael killed. I think one of the reasons he did it was to protect himself.

Well, there are three different answers:

1) DUH!! It's wrong (not to mention illegal) to kill ANYONE.

2) Assuming you regard it 'acceptable' to kill people for 'business reasons,' if your overriding loyalty is to the family, you would do anything other than kill a family member. Maybe tell Fredo he has to get out of the country, go live in Sicily or something.

3) But the problem with that is that Fredo wouldn't go for it. Michael seriously gave him chance and chance to save himself, but Fredo kept betraying him. The first time or two, you can excuse away by saying "well, that's just Fredo, he's stupid and doesn't know what he's doing," but especially after the "It's not the way I wanted it!!!" speech at the Nevada house, it's not just Fredo being stupid. He knows what he's doing.

Think about it: Michael is really in an impossible position. What if, to give the craziest example, Michael says, "OK, Fredo. I abdicate as the Don, and turn it all over to you."

What happens then? Fredo and everybody connected with the Corleone family would be dead within about 10 days, that's what happens - Fredo does not have the smarts to run the family, he would blunder into some trap almost instantly, and even more, nobody within the Corleone gang would respect him, and there would be a mad scramble for the doors to see who would be the first to betray him.

I mean, if you were on the Starship Enterprise, the Klingons are coming with all guns firing, and Capt. Kirk says he is turning over command to Carrot Top, wouldn't you start looking for the escape hatches?

The "Not the way I wanted it" outburst tells Michael that Fredo will never be satisfied with a subservient position in the family, but Michael also knows there is no practical alternative.

(And the final playout of THAT little Bizarro World scenario would be, that if Fredo really did have the brains, guts and nerve to run the Corleone gang, probably the first thing he would decide to do if he were put in charge would be ... to kill Michael.)

Fredo had to go simple as that. In the world of Organized Crime betrayal is never forgiven, had Michael let Fredo live. Fredo could've easily betrayed Michael again.

Plus if it had gotten out to the rest of the Organized Crime world, that Michael had let a man close to him live despite being betrayed. Then Michael wouldn't have looked very tough/good. Michael would've looked weak, thus easy to have removed permanently.

krlea like TIS, & apple have mentioned earlier, no need to apalogize for asking a repeat question. Heck I've done it before.

Yes Michael was wrong for killing Fredo but he felt guilty for it later on in the trilogy

Yes he did feel guilty 'later in the Trilogy' (which as we know much of Part III was a wink & nod to the audience), and no, he wasn't wrong for having Fredo killed.

Apple

IN Godfather 1 Vito says something like "Wonen and CHildren can be careless, but not men" (of course I dont think this is generally true). I think thats what Fredo was guilty of,being careless.

He was born into a family where status and a certain kind of strength were whats important in life. He couldnt get away from what hes family taught him. If he did he might of rejected the gangster world and operated in a sphere that suited him. He was very good at the party scene, as was evident in the 1st 2 films. I believe he would have exellent prospects in the entertainment world.

But as he couldn't pull away from his families world, he was doomed as he didnt really fit.

Interestingly it was Michael who most had the ability to transcend his upbringing, but circumstances brought him into the family. I thought he was a better don than Vito, (although a different kind of Don) probably more built for the age he was in.

I thought it was wrong to kill Fredo to be honest, although all murders wrong of course. If it could be shown that Fredo had more of a hand in the hit than was shown (as some of the posts here are suggesting) then its more understandable.

Puzo provided the best answer to this question, in the last chapter of the novel:
In the novel, Kay leaves Michael and takes the kids to New Hampshire after she figures out that Michael had Carlo and Tessio killed. Hagen goes up to visit her and persuade her to return to Michael. Kay demands, "It was all over with. Everybody was happy. Why couldn't Carlo be forgiven"
Hagen replies: "Tessio had to be killed. Carlo had to be killed. Because treachery can't be forgiven. Michael could have forgiven it, but people never forgive themselves and so they would always be dangerous. Michael really liked Tessio. He loves his sister, But he would be shirking his duty to you and his children, to the whole family, to me and my family, if he let Tessio and Carlo go free. They would have been a danger to us all, all of our lives."
I think this was all applicable in Fredo's case. In the boathouse meeting, meek little Fredo let out a terrific outburst of resentment against Mike. Had Mike given him a pass, Fredo would have brooded more and more about how he was "passed over," was getting "no respect," and would have felt even more humiliated because his plot with Roth and Ola failed to turn things around for him. In Hagen's words: he would never have forgiven himself for having tried and failed. He put himself in a psychologically untenable position: he did a horrific thing in betraying his brother, and the plot failed to resolve his frustration. Now he was exposed, humiliated, seemingly forgiven by his brother--and stuck with a lifetime of guilt and of continuing to be the flunky who picks people up at the airport and runs Mickey Mouse nightclubs. The only thing left for Fredo: try again.

OMG!!! Now we'e getting sympathy for poor Carlo!!


Carlo handed Michael's brother (Sonny) over to be killed, and himself repeatedly beat the crap out of Connie.

That was one part of GF I that didn't ring true to me. Either Vito was totally unlike any Italian papa I ever met, or after Carlo smacked up Connie a couple of times, I was surprised Vito didn't pull the trigger on the MF'er himself.

In high school I had an Italian girlfriend, and let me tell you, I would have never thought of raising a finger to her, because I didn't want to go take a Luca Brasi Scuba Dive!!!

I wholeheartedly agree that Carlo deserved to die,
but about Fredo, you guys are tough!
I don't think Fredo would have ever had the balls
to attempt another betrayal. i think he was too terrified of the chance of getting caught again, and I think Michael felt this too. It was vengeance on Michael's part, IMO.

Well, all one has to do is consider the business they were both raised in and involved in to realize that 'tough' is the name of the game!!

The simple fact that the two were brothers apparently played no role in either the betrayal or the killing.

Except of course, until you consider that Fredo betrayed Mike precisely because he was jealous at being 'stepped over' in favor of his kid brother, which makes it all the more shameful and despicable. His motivations were selfish and self-centered, and the fact that he was setting up his own brother, even if he wasn't aware that it was for 'a hit'....apparently played no role in Fredo's decision to work with Ola & Roth.

Oh, and of course that had they not shared a mother who was still alive, Fredo would NOT have been allowed to live as long as he was. He would've been shot dead immediately after that final conversation in the boathouse.

This killing of Fredo wasn't personal, neither was the betrayal. Both were strictly business.

Fredo had to go.

So yep, I think those of us who have it figured out can certainly be thought of as 'tough'.

Apple

When Michael and Fredo are having the drinks together, Fredo seems like he is about to tell Michael.

"Mike, I was mad at you. Why didn't we ever spend time like this before?!"

He shows remorse, Michael changes the subject, and Fredo cops out of his confession.

Does anyone else interpret that like this?

Sort of...only I don't think Fredo EVER planned to confess to Michael, as he knew full well what the consequences would be.

This sudden 'closeness' coming from Michael - and the fact that he now knew he aided in an attempt on Michael's life - did cause Fredo to suffer from a major attack of guilt, that he knew he'd have to live with. He wished out loud that they could've been this way BEFORE he'd been approached by Ola. Maybe he's thinking to himself he would've acted differently

But he probably knew he could never tell Mike what had happened...no matter what.

Apple

Apple

I think he had to kill him. Regardless of what Fredo's involvement was with Roth or the assassination attempt, Michael could not take the chance of perhaps Fredo doing something stupid against him or the family again.

Michael even warned Fredo about taking sides against the family with the Moe Green thing and Fredo still didn't learn.

Sometimes the right decision isn't always the popular decision.

I'm gonna spin this old question on its wrinkled ass and shoot "if given the opportunity, would Michael do 'IT' all over again"?

It is the dilemma that if Michael must kill Fredo or not. if he is the leader and wants to stay there as leader, then he has no choice but to kill Fredo. But if he can not kill Fredo then he should quit mafia leadership.

In fact later in GF3, he feels regretful about this killing, because he already started to go away from what he's been doing.

And also it seems unfair that Michael kills Fredo due to that attempt to kill Michael. But what if Kay or Michael were killed as a result of that attemp? you still think it was unfair Fredo murder?

I don't think Fredo betrayed Michael. I wrote this in a recent post:

"Basically the extent of betrayal is going to be a much debated issue on this board. The truth is its left very ambiguous in the movie by FFC and I think this is a great touch cus it gives people like fuel for further debate.

From the level of the plot in the movie, we only really learn later at the "estate", where Fredo is staying, by his own emission to Michael, that it was Ola and Roth that conjured up the excuse that the negotiation with Mike weren't going very well and needed into the compound (presumably by subterfuge).

Fredo adds after that part that there was a "sweetener" in the deal. That there was "something in it for him" and there was never anything in it for him any other time.

This is basically all the information we know. We know that at least Fredo fucked up and was duped into letting them in. But even the conversation I just outlines is ambiguous because Fredo is indicating he was duped, but at the same time part of him was blinded by the greed that “something was in it for him”. We are left with the question how much did Fredo allow himself to be duped or if there was any conscious decision making here (indicating some level of betrayal).

It’s my opinion that Fredo was duped or fooled and the promise of this additional sweetener was simply a tool that Roth used to manipulate Fredo. Fredo was weak willed but trusting and very warm hearted, Michael even goes so far as saying he’s stupid. Even after the incident he is like this. But Fredo was so enamored with the promise of something he earned that it threw caution out the window. I don’t think Fredo would have ever consciously betrayed his family but he was fooled.

Well, Vito taught that nothing was just business. If assuming for a minute that Fredo did conciously and maliciously betray his brother (know of the plot), well this is pretty much very personally. I think his extreme reaction to this gray issue shows more Michael's tyranical nature by GF II and ruthless approach to the life."

Basically, I think it was Fredo was honestly fooled. The tragedy of this at the end of GF II in my opinion is we feel for Fredo because he is a good natured character and he means no harm. He has a child like innocence.

Michael on the other hand was his brother should have listened to him deeper. He knew his nature, Michael didn't know the whole story and with this lack of compassion due to his iron-clad sense of justice that was imbedded in his head, he lacked to initative to straighten out the story and be a great judge. It is left ambiguous because in GF II we side with Michael, the protagonist, both emotionally and mentally. It's the way FFC made the movie and therefore it's left a bit grey.

But it's my contention that Fredo was duped and didnt' conciously or maliciously betray Michael and didn't derserve to die.

I don't blame Michael for it because it was business not personal. Fredo had some nerve to show his face after that conversation in the boat house. I think he had the chance to run away and disappear. He was so stupid otherwise he should have known he was a dead man. Remember Mike told Al I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother is still alive? He stopped Al for a little while because of personal matters and if Fredo was smart enough which in his case he never was, he should have gone somewhere nobody knows. In such a business there are rules and they apply to anyone who does business regardless of them being friends or relatives. Those who do not play by rules would die by rules.

A small point perhaps, but I don't think Fredo was motivated by greed.

It was more the idea that something was in it for him on his own than whatever the something actually was.

By his own admission, Fredo was basically an errand boy. So the idea of dealing with powerful men like Ola and Roth own his own had to have agreat deal of appeal for him.

As the brother of the head of the most powerful Mafia family in America, I doubt that Fredo wanted for anything, at least economically, that would make greed play a part in his betrayal.

It was all about ego.

i think fredo deserved to die even if he was fooled into setting up the hit in tahoe. even if he is remorseful and is able to convince michael he will never betray him again, that's no gurantee he won't betray michael without knowing what he's doing. i believe fredo was sorry for what he did and never would have gone against michael knowingly, but eventually one of michael's enemies would have found out about fredo's betrayal and "tricked" him into doing it again. didn't roth and ola convince fredo that by helping them there would be something in it for fredo, but also that the negotiations would benefit the corleone family? i might be wrong in my interpretation, but that's always kind of the impression i got and fredo was stupid enough to believe it then, so what would make michael think he wouldn't be stupid enough to be tricked again.

OK, well I see that there are many of you bereft of compassion for this issue. Let me start out by saying betrayal is only betrayal if it’s consciously motivated. If I sell a map of air traffic routes to terrorists when the terrorists pose as legitimate business men and use it for terrorism purposes, am I a traitor. Well by the criteria that everyone is judging Fredo by he is a traitor.

GF II indicates that Fredo was tricked into letting them in due to his naivety, lack of will power and general childlike good nature and trust in the good nature of everyone. These are his character flaws in a world where ruthlessness and distrust is one way to get to the top.

Let me point out as well for a man of Michael’s intellect he could have easily devised a solution that would keep Fredo alive and out of the family. Even keeping him out of the business would do so, or sending him away to Europe or whatnot.

And there is one point everyone seems to be glossing over in their scathing condemnation of Fredo is at the end of GF II, Michael seems remorseful and longing for his family and in GF III there is innumerable reference by Michael having said that he DID do the wrong thing by killing Fredo and was guilt ridden ever since. If it was such a bad decision then why is he so remorseful 20 or so years later?

correcton I mean "... am I a traitor? By the way everyone is judging Fredo I am"

I just re-watched Part II today, and I think Michael was justified in ordering Fredo to be killed. It wasn't the fact that he betrayed Michael, it was the fact when confronted about it he (Freo) went on a tirade about being "passed over" and how he wanted something on his own.

Fredo's rant showed Michael that he would never be satisfied with being "controlled" by his kid brother, and would always have resentment for not being chosen to be the Don after Vito died. Michael had no choice but to have Fredo killed, in order to ensure that he wouldn't try again later to get a piece of his own. You can't trust somebody who resents you, even if they're blood relatives. They'll always remain a potential threat; even if for the rest of his life Fredo never attempted anything, the risk is still there and would be too great to gamble on.

For me, everyone is right!

For the above reasons, Michael was justified in killing his brother. If you are a traitor, you die (family law). However Klera, I believe you are right that Michael is wrong (morally) in killing his brother in an almost Kane and Abel-like fashion. Michael pays for his actions by being internally tormented by ordering his brother's death. What made it so bad for him is that he actually watched the hit. That was a chilling scene.

Now is it more important for Michael in following family rules/laws or making concessions in extreme cases (such as this one, what to do for dim-witted relatives, rip their tongues out?).

On the other had Carlo is a small fish and married a Corleone in hopes to swim in a very large pond. When things were not going to way that he planned, he staged the fight with Connie so that Sonny can be killed at the toll. He understood that his actions meant Sonny's death. Carlo deserved to die.