Were Stracci and Cuneo culpable?

Apologies if this topic has come up before (which it probably has)--I've had a look back over previous subjects but nothing especially stood out.

Going back to 1, when the Don first refuses Sollozzo and is subsequently set up for the hit.

We know the Tattaglias are behind Sollozzo, and later we learn that Barzini was too. What I've never fully understood is why it ends up as a 'Five Families War' unless Stracci and Cuneo were in on it also from the beginning (which was never specifically stated as being the case)?

My point is this: Barzini was so deep in the shadows that even the great Don Corleone didn't know he was behind it until much later. Presumably he would have figured out if Stracci and / or Cuneo were too, by that point. Moreover, Sollozzo--a man of respect, certainly, but nobody especially important within the Five Families--not only struck the first blow, he also attempted to kill a ranking Don.

I just cannot understand why Stracci and Cuneo would side with Tattaglia (surely they were also in the dark about Barzini's involvement, being themselves 'less than' the great Don Corleone?), a pimp wrapped around this Sollozzo's little finger, and also refuse to insist that Tattaglia hand over Sollozzo, as Sonny demanded.

Was Puzo suggesting that Stracci and Cuneo were with Barzini all along, uniting together to bring down the Corleones? Nothing else seems to make much sense, as to why exactly those two ended up backing the pimp and his drug-dealing friend.

It was called the Five Families War, because after Michael killed Sollozzo and Captain McCluskey, all the families turned against the Corleones, as Tom Hagen had predicted.

Remember this line:

Now nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain -- never. It would be disastrous. All the Five Families would come after you, Sonny. The Corleone Family would be outcasts!

Yep, from that point it was downhill all the way, no question about it.

What I'm trying to understand (if there is even a logical explanation) was why Stracci and Cuneo were (outwardly) neutral up until that point, given all that had transpired concerning the Turk's attempt on a Don's life and the resulting Corleone-Tattaglia hostilities.

Sure, they may have been secretly delighted to see two rival families go to war--no skin off their nose--but not, I would've thought for that particular reason . . . unless they were somehow perhaps also involved, along with Barzini.

For instance, the Don later calling the meeting of the assorted powerful Dons from around the country seems to suggest the existence of some sort of 'Commission', as occurred in real life. The most fundamental rule of such a body (out of self-preservation, if nothing else!) is that you don't whack a Don without the Commission's approval. That is--supposedly, at least--just plain suicide.

Ergo: unless such a 'Commission' simply does not exist in the world of The Godfather, then Stracci and Cuneo undoubtedly sit on that panel, and therefore unless actually somehow culpable for the attempt on Don Corleone's life, they should have been absolutely outraged against Sollozzo and Tattaglia at least (and Barzini, too, had they known of his involvement)--and all well before Michael ever decided that he was really his father's son, after all.

I just can't get my head around why exactly Stracci and Cuneo did not, very early on, join with Sonny in demanding Sollozzo's head on a platter--and perhaps even Tattaglia's, also.

I'm open to suggestions!

I think Cuneo and Stracci were included in the film's massacre just for dramatic effect. In the novel they are not.

Yes, it was dramatic license. But, the murder of Sol and Mac harmed all the families because, as the novel points out, the cops got word to the families that all illegal would be prosecuted until Mac's murderer was given up by the families. When Sonny refused, all the families had a stake in the war.

Because war is bad for business and it's better to stay neutral than to be involved in a feud between two other families.



In The Godfather there is also a Commission, and it's true that only the Commission can decide to kill a boss. But in this case it was Sollozzo -- who wasn't officially part of any family -- who made his move against Corleone. He could do this because he was backed by two other major families. Sollozzo was just a pawn. I think that if he succeeded he would later also be killed just as a matter of principle, and because he was disposable.

No question about that. Sollozzo was a means to an end. If Barzini and Tattaglia succeeded in their was against the Corleones, Sollozzo would have eventually become expendable.

No I dont think it was dramatic license. With Vito in the hospital and with Sonny doing a bad job running the family which killed a NYPD captain, Stracci and Cuneo would ally themselves with Barzini and Tattglia so they could pick up some of the spoils of the defeated Corleone empire.

But that was also known in the novel, but the novel does not have Cuneo and Stracci murdered. Just as the novel has Sonny shot by three hitmen apparently using pistols, in the film he is mercilessly machinegunned by an array of hitmen. Dramatic license.

From the way they acted both before and after the meeting with Sollozzo, it's pretty clear that the Corleones expected a challenge after Vito said no. From the way everyone acted, it seems that the rules required the Tattaglias-Sollozzo group to bring their reasonable request, but that once it was refused by Vito, it was expected by everyone that the groups would test each other's strength.

I don't think it's a contradiction for Cuneo and Stracci to stay out of the Tattaglia-Corleone fight until after McCluskey was killed. The McCluskey killing was the incident that brought the authorities down on all the families.

Given Puzo's role with the screenplay, I'm probably too inclined to take the movie as the final, "polished" version of the novel, rather than worry too much about the differences between them.

I guess it's because this is one of those rare situations where a great book emerges as an even greater movie, whereas most Hollywood efforts tend to have very much the opposite effect--turning a great story into a mediocre (at best) film.

But I digress . . . Back on topic: all considered, I think I'm of the opinion that neglecting to have members of the Commission (specifically, Stracci and Cuneo in this case, as fairly major 'background' characters) not give Sonny at least token support at the beginning was a mistake, but granted, not an especially major one. That would at least have rang true with the basic ethos of the mafia--you don't whack a boss without approval--and they could still always have switched sides later, when Sonny's revenge went a step too far (in sanctioning the death of a New York Police Captain).

Still, no biggie.