Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[re: the Moe Green meeting in GF1] In Michael's eyes, his trying to 'smooth things out' [with Moe Green] was taking sides AGAINST the Family. Therefore, Michael considered him a risk and sufficiently warned him not to do so again.
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.
Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
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.
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.
