Massacre of '55

While watching the first Godfather recently, I wondered why exactly, Michael needed to kill the heads of the five families and Moe Greene at the end, other than to "assume and consolidate his nepharious power". After all, he was moving the family to Vegas anyway. Here were my thoughts...

He had to get rid of Moe Greene to take over his hotel in Vegas, thats a given...He knew from his father that Barzini was gonna come after him, so he had to wipe out don Barzini before Barzini could do the same to Michael and take over his territory. Are my assumptions correct or am I way off?

Now, here's where its cloudy for me. Was the killing of Tattaglia, Stracci (sp?), and Cuneo just to prevent them from coming after the Corleones for killing Barzini, or was it something else???

If I'm not mistaken, only Barzini, Tattaglia and Moe Green were killed in the novel. Tattaglia was killed as further payback for Sonny's death (despite the fact that Tattaglia's son was already killed). Moe Green was killed because of the way he handled Fredo and Barzini was killed to stop the threat against the Corleones.

I could only suggest the others were killed to juice up the movie.

A show of power before Mike went west.

That's exactly why the others were killed--to provide some dramatic assassination violence. The novel's murders were more businesslike: Moe Green was killed before the Great Massacre day because he needed to be out of the way for Michael to move on his hotel. Cuneo and Stracci didn't have to be killed because they were not active conspirators against Vito and Michael (although they may have taken sides against Vito during the war). But, by killing Tat and Barz, Michael had made his point: he was the new top dog, and the others would fall in line without murder.

Dont forget that Moe talked to Barzini about making the deal and keeping the hotel(even if Barzini prob didnt mean).

Michael had to kill Moe for the reasons mentioned above as well as his willingness to do a deal with Barzini.

Absolutely TB. From a dramatic standpoint it made more sense to get Moe along with everyone else.

The sequence in the novel always bothered me a little because it seems that by getting rid of Moe before they made the move against Barzini and Tattaglia , the Corleones might be showing their hand a little bit.

I mean if I were Barzini and I'm pushing around the Corleones, taking over their gambling and loan sharking rackets, chasing them off the docks and maybe starting to cut them out of their narcotics payoffs and they do nothing, then I will think they are soft and weak. But if I hear that some new Corleone hitman who no one's heard of before takes out Moe Green, then maybe I should reassess, no?

Moe was small potatoes. Had Barzini's attempt to kill Michael and become the big cheese been successful, he would have never kept his end of the deal with Moe Green.

So Barzini may have not viewed Michael's move against him as any kind of threat to him. In fact Barzini probably figured, "good, Michael Corleone has done my dirtywork for me." Barzini's thinking was probably that since Michael moved Moe out, now all he had to do was take Michael out and he'd automatically be the Capo Di Tutti Capi and the casino that Michael had taken from Moe would become his (Barzini's) without his having to take out Moe Green himself. His thinking probably was that "The Corleone's have given me one less thing to worry about by killing Moe Green."

Remember that at that point, in Barzini's mind, the Corleone's were powerless. At that point, Barzini had already began seeing himself sitting on the throne.

That's a great post, DC. However, isn't it mostly conjecture on your part? The novel does not mention Barzini or any of the other New York families wanting to move into Vegas (perhaps that's a given??); it does not mention or imply that Barzini would break his deal (whatever deal that was?) with Moe.

But that doesn't mean you're incorrect. I'd just like to learn about the historical comparison that made you reach that conclusion.

It's not even clear that Moe actually had a deal with Barzini. "I talk to Barzini. I can make a deal with him and still hold onto my hotel..." Moe might have been bluffing Michael at that point. Or he might have inferred that he could make a deal with Barzini, without actually having broached the specifics with him.

Or, quite possibly, he was just talking shit, so to speak. At that point, Moe had little, if any respect at all for Mike. He wouldn't have been afraid to try to bluff him.

Don't forget that Moe really, really ticked off mike about slapping Fredo around. The fact that Mike mentioned it to Moe inthe way he did is clear evidence of that. That he goes on to warn Fredo about taking sides against the family reinforces it. So, murdering Moe for slapping Fredo around was just icing on the cake of murdering him to take the casino.

Wasn't Barzini responsible for Sonny's death? It's what Carlo stated before he was whacked, that he was confronted by Barzini. Plus the Don said it to, "... it was Barzini all along" after the commission meeting.

Something I don't understand is why would Michael make such a bold move in eliminating the heads of the five families, to move to Nevada? What's the point in that? He had the city, and the cosa nostra, in the palm of his hands. I could understand expanding your influence to Nevada, but moving it entirely?

You have to allow for authorial license. Drama and excitement are the hallmarks of many movies. A gangster epic is expected to be a shootemup (as oposed to the limited eliminations in the novel). In FFC's view, Michael being the premier Don in the country required that he eliminate all rivals. Then too, the war was waged against the Corleones by all the families, not just Barzini and Tattaglia. Also, you have to keep in mind that Mafia families just don't pack up and move. They may expand theirinfluence and operations, but they don't abandon them where they started. Michael intended for the Corleones to be on top in NY (albeit through Clemenza) eternally.

Yes, it was Barzini, as Carlo confessed. But Tatt was in it with Barzini.


As Olivant said, it was designed to add more violence and drama to the story. In the novel, Michael didn't whack Stracchi and Cuneo, presumably because he didn't have to--they didn't actively conspire against him (though they took sides against him); and anyway, by eliminating Barzini, there was no question that Michael was the top dog.

Besides the movie scene,that is totally served by a sequel of murders while Michael states that he declines Satan and all his acts (tremendous filming),we have to consider Michael's character,which is best described in #2:
Michael was the kind of guy who never takes any risks.In order to be the leader,he doesn't hesitate to "sacrifice" or better not to forgive,even his on brother.When Tom asks him "You won Michael.Do you have to kill them all?",he replies "Not all.Just my enemies".His power is his reason.If any of the heads of the 5 Families survived,they would run after him.They might,but he doesn't want to take the chances.
Except only one time,for Michael it was not personal,not revenge,ont infamnia,not honour,it was just buisiness.

Quiz/pole: which was this very unique time?

Geary's prostitute?

Fabrizio - for killing Apollonia

Why, with possible exception of Barzini, were the Dons without protection at the time they were murdered?

Well, Tattaglia was screwing a gal, so doubt he's got too many guards in the room with him LOL....

There was a bodyguard with the guy in the elevator, but I forgot who that one was.

They were slippin'.
They all underestimated Michael.

Who really was a threat to them at that point? The Corleones appeared weak and powerless, and the other Don's, at that point, were already in bed with Barzini.