... earlier in the thread you wrote, "The point is he handled Fredo's betrayal the way it had to be handled. By eliminating the traitor." That seems to me to be roughly equivalent to my summation, albeit in different words.
Not really. I was referring to eliminating a traitor. There was no reference to foregiveness.
[quote=The Last Woltz] ... Mama could have lived for 20 more years. I see that as a clear repudiation of your assertion that Fredo was a continuing threat. You don't seem to factor that into your analysis.
You've got a good point there, I must admit. Michael did take the chance on his mother living many more years and therefore Fredo as well. Chalk it up to the writers, who apparently decided that mama would die within a few months, and therefore so would Fredo. Which brings us back to the topic that I still agree with Michael's decision on how to handle Fredo's betrayal.
...nobody has yet answered Olivant's question abuot what possible value Fredo in exile would have had to another Family..
Actually, Turnbull has and quite succinctly as usual. If you & olivant are looking for exact details as to what kind of a plan would have been set in place, then there is obviously no answer to that just use your imagination as to what might've been.
... I agree that Fredo being Michael's brother should have made a difference, but only becuause he could be neutralized in other ways.
Being brothers didn't make a difference to Fredo, when he conspired against Michael in whatever way he assisted Roth. And...whether aware or unaware of it being 'a hit', that's exactly what he did, conspired against his own brother, for personal gain.
