Home

Don Carlo v. Lucky

Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 05:16 AM

Very simple at the height of each other's power who was A- Making the most money. B- Exerted more influence over all of LCN. C- Overall the most powerful boss.

Simply put I don't think there was any boss more powerful than Luciano. He had all of the future bosses in his pocket that he was able to control and lead big egos and violent bosses. Carlo's intelligence and cunning I feel like where unmatched but he didn't have the power to do what Luciano was able to do which is why I believe Luciano was the most powerful.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 05:36 AM

I am always confused as to why people assume Lucky was the most powerful boss of his time. Influential yes but most powerful?
Im saying no...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 05:40 AM

In fact, I think Carlo's influence while not exactly overstated, people underestimate the power of Luchesse at this time...
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 05:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D
Very simple at the height of each other's power who was A- Making the most money. B- Exerted more influence over all of LCN. C- Overall the most powerful boss.

Simply put I don't think there was any boss more powerful than Luciano. He had all of the future bosses in his pocket that he was able to control and lead big egos and violent bosses. Carlo's intelligence and cunning I feel like where unmatched but he didn't have the power to do what Luciano was able to do which is why I believe Luciano was the most powerful.

Carlo Gambino died in his own bed in the country of his choosing. Furthermore, to say that Luciano controlled the future bosses is ridiculous. He couldn't even prevent the Costello-Genovese clusterfuck from happening, and that was within his own family. It's an unfair comparison anyway. They were close enough in age, but Gambino didn't attain the lion's share of his power until years after Luciano got jailed and then deported.

That said, I think the Luciano/Costello/Lansky triumvirate was the most intelligent in the history of organized crime. Without their vision, the Italian-American Mafia wouldn't have seen a second generation, let alone last a hundred years.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
Originally Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D
Very simple at the height of each other's power who was A- Making the most money. B- Exerted more influence over all of LCN. C- Overall the most powerful boss.

Simply put I don't think there was any boss more powerful than Luciano. He had all of the future bosses in his pocket that he was able to control and lead big egos and violent bosses. Carlo's intelligence and cunning I feel like where unmatched but he didn't have the power to do what Luciano was able to do which is why I believe Luciano was the most powerful.

Carlo Gambino died in his own bed in the country of his choosing. Furthermore, to say that Luciano controlled the future bosses is ridiculous. He couldn't even prevent the Costello-Genovese clusterfuck from happening, and that was within his own family. It's an unfair comparison anyway. They were close enough in age, but Gambino didn't attain the lion's share of his power until years after Luciano got jailed and then deported.

That said, I think the Luciano/Costello/Lansky triumvirate was the most intelligent in the history of organized crime. Without their vision, the Italian-American Mafia wouldn't have seen a second generation, let alone last a hundred years.



Why is it ridiculous? He controlled Genovese, Joe Adonis, Anastasia, Costello, Gambino and convinced Profachi and Bonanno to switch sides.

He couldn't control the Genovese, Costello problem because he was already deported to Italy by that time and not to mention in prison before that. It wasn't like he was able to keep his ear to the street or really take the reins anymore. Plus the Jewish gangsters which he could count on because of Lansky and Siegel dried up and heavy hitters like Adonis got deported and Moretti terminally ill. Anastasia's erratic behavior could have been controlled as Luciano was the only man to really be able to do this.

And the question was at their peak's who was more successful as a boss. So Probably for Gambino say 1960-1976. Luciano for 1931-1936. So while Carlo ruled a lot longer. I think for what Luciano was able to accomplish gives him the edge.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
I am always confused as to why people assume Lucky was the most powerful boss of his time. Influential yes but most powerful?
Im saying no...


No one went against Lucky when he was making his rise and those that did didn't last much longer.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 09:58 AM

My thing is he seems to get way too much credit.Like did Lucky come up with the commision idea? Or was it an extension of the 7 Group idea proposed by Johnny Torrio to cut down the bootlegging competition? I read a book on sicily, and nicola gentile said something to the effect of the idea of a commision actually being unoriginal.How powerful was Luciano getting 50 years state time for prostitution, something sowed up in chicago during the colosimo days? i also think its a little naive to say Lucky controlled these guys, more like they listened to him because HE WASNT TRYING TO RUN EVERYTHING like a genovese.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 10:18 AM

Also to the point, these guys had no reason to go against Lucky cause he wasnt tryna WAR WITH THEM, or take over their businesses. Also, the commision really was always the chicago outfit and the luciano family/lansky click. There is a mary ferrell document where Tommy Ryan mentions this, that they and chicago were always of one mind. THIS was actually the main strength and ally of the luciano family on the commision, this kept the others in check. Consider this, Profaci had kids married into both the bonnano and zerilli families, bonnano is cousins with maggadino,and all these guys are close to Gagliano and Magano. Thats a hell of a power block, now Luciano is close to the underbosses at this time like anastasia and luchesse but these guys arnt bosses yet. Its the chicago connection thats the biggest source of strength, they are eventually partners in the race wire, hollywood, vegas, havannah,teamsters,slots,jukes, all the biggest rackets...
Posted By: oldschool3

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 01:20 PM

That said, I think the Luciano/Costello/Lansky triumvirate was the most intelligent in the history of organized crime. Without their vision, the Italian-American Mafia wouldn't have seen a second generation, let alone last a hundred years.

There is your "Making of the Mob" series in a nutshell...without those 3 there is no mob today.
Posted By: Sonny_Black

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 03:03 PM

I tend to go for Carlo, for the simple reason of being in power for 20 years as opposed to Luciano's five years. Carlo also had close ties with the major Sicillian bosses with whom he had set up a vast international heroin pipeline. Luciano basically exploited the power structure that was set up by others before him. One thing is for sure though, both are among the most interesting and legendary Mafia figures in history, along with Morello, Maranzano and Bonanno.
Posted By: OldSmoke

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/20/15 05:10 PM

It's a tough call, as Carlo has the edge in longevity and Luciano has the edge in vision and the right allies.

Carlo probably exercised more power than Charlie though. He had Eboli whacked, possibly helped setup Genovese, had Bonanno banished, instigated the Gallo-Profaci War and probably had Colombo hit, which essentially led to Gallo getting hit, and starting another civil war in that family, none of which that family has ever really recovered from.

I have always been of the opinion that Luciano's power stemmed more from his alliances with the Jewish Rothstein and the Irish Dwyer and Madden. His influence within those organizations, which, through the first half of Prohibition, were the dominant mobs in NY. Lucky using his contacts in these groups while working for Masseria are what made Masseria the 'most powerful' boss in the city after the other groups started imploding. But, imo, Masseria's power in that latter years of Prohibition stemmed directly from the influence Luciano and his boys provided. Masseria became the most powerful boss because he had Luciano.

That's just my opinion, still trying to find the right info to back it up.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Also to the point, these guys had no reason to go against Lucky cause he wasnt tryna WAR WITH THEM, or take over their businesses. Also, the commision really was always the chicago outfit and the luciano family/lansky click. There is a mary ferrell document where Tommy Ryan mentions this, that they and chicago were always of one mind. THIS was actually the main strength and ally of the luciano family on the commision, this kept the others in check. Consider this, Profaci had kids married into both the bonnano and zerilli families, bonnano is cousins with maggadino,and all these guys are close to Gagliano and Magano. Thats a hell of a power block, now Luciano is close to the underbosses at this time like anastasia and luchesse but these guys arnt bosses yet. Its the chicago connection thats the biggest source of strength, they are eventually partners in the race wire, hollywood, vegas, havannah,teamsters,slots,jukes, all the biggest rackets...


The Genovese family controlled New York and New York controlled the whole country. Without a doubt it helped that Chicago sided with Genovese on most if not all commission issues. But you have to think that the Genovese family controlled the commission until Gambino became boss, this was as a direct result of Luciano being boss when HE formed the commission.

Sure it was easier for Luciano to get them to fall in line than to go to war with them but the fact that he was able to take out bosses Maranzano and Masseria and then have the charisma to get egos like Anastasia and Genovese to fall in line speaks volumes in my opinion. I'm not denying he didn't have help but he was the one to actually put it all together.He might not of had the idea but he knew how to implement it and get everyone else to go along.
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 03:09 AM

Depends on how you define "power." Luciano was very influential: he ended the era of the Moustache Petes by arranging for the assassinations of Masseria and Maranzano; set up the Commission, and invited help and counsel from non-Sicilians and even non-Italians. He was really the first modern American Don. But, his reign was short: convicted in 1936, given a double-digit sentence, served 10 years, and was deported, never achieving the same influence again.

Gambino served as Don of the biggest Mafia family for far longer, achieved more wealth than Luciano ever dreamed of, never served a day in prison after he became Don, and, as PB said, died in his own bed--in itself, a significant achievement for any Mafioso. Unlike Luciano, he was relentlessly low-profile, and his influence was often felt, seldom seen. My nod goes to him.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 04:01 AM

Originally I would have said Lucky, but taking in to account the two lengths of their rule, Gambino's twenty years is truly an achievement. But again no one dared challenge Luciano whereas Gambino while always emerging victorious had to deal with the Bonanno war whom could have won if not for a heart attack and thus his retirement to AZ, the Colombo fiasco where again if not for Profachi's death and Magliocco being the only one left giving up could have ended different. It just seemed for the short time Lucky was boss, his will was unchallenged and there was peace throughout the mob. Even Anastasia who was itching to take out Mangano for years waited until Lucky was deported. For simplifying things, say

Lucky in 1935 right before his imprisionment. and Carlo in 1975 right before his death
Posted By: mulberry

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 04:23 AM

Luciano survived the Castellamarese War and cane out on top. He was sentenced to 50 years and got out after 11. He took on the two most powerful bosses in the country and they both ended up dead.

Gambino was definitely not the most powerful boss in the country until later in his rule.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 06:28 AM

To say the "Genovese Family" controlled New York to me is a little naive.First, during the Luciano era, in order for the Genovese and Luchesse families to become what they are today a few things had to happen first.First Dutch Schutlz had to die and they absorb his Bronx and Harlem rackets. Then Louis Lepke had to die and they absorbed his Harlem and Garment center rackets. Then Longy Zwillman had to die so they could absorb the jersey rackets. Those three guys were as powerful as anyone in CN. I say Gambino was hands down more powerful for no other reason that he really pursued power. The Genovese Family was always the most americanized, hence more businessmen more business focused.After Luciano was sent away, Costello spent more time worring about his own interest and trying to fit in with high society. Lansky is off making Cuba deals and whatnot, Bugsy went Hollywood. During this time i really believe its the profaci bonnano power that is really running the commision. I dont think its any coincidence Carlo spent so much time using the commision authority to weaken profaci and bonnano...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 07:33 AM

Titles arnt always indicative of power. Consider Costello; Boss of supposedly the most powerful family, yet in order to neutralize a capo in his own family (Genovese)he has to okay a hit on a Boss (Mangano) because he needs Anastasia's MUSCLE?
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
To say the "Genovese Family" controlled New York to me is a little naive.First, during the Luciano era, in order for the Genovese and Luchesse families to become what they are today a few things had to happen first.First Dutch Schutlz had to die and they absorb his Bronx and Harlem rackets. Then Louis Lepke had to die and they absorbed his Harlem and Garment center rackets. Then Longy Zwillman had to die so they could absorb the jersey rackets. Those three guys were as powerful as anyone in CN. I say Gambino was hands down more powerful for no other reason that he really pursued power. The Genovese Family was always the most americanized, hence more businessmen more business focused.After Luciano was sent away, Costello spent more time worring about his own interest and trying to fit in with high society. Lansky is off making Cuba deals and whatnot, Bugsy went Hollywood. During this time i really believe its the profaci bonnano power that is really running the commision. I dont think its any coincidence Carlo spent so much time using the commision authority to weaken profaci and bonnano...


Dutch Schultz died because he went against the commission in wanting to kill dewey, Luciano had a hand in giving that order. Lepke died in Sing Sing because after being hidden by Albert (which I'm sure Luciano knew about) for like 2 years, Luciano gives the order for him to surrender and he got a special deal with the prosecutor which obviously is bullshit but Luciano had a hand in making that happen. Bugsy was sent to California by Luciano/Lansky syndicate. Profaci and Bonanno had no relationship with Murder Inc. and no relationship with the Jewish Gangsters that were still relevant during those times.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Titles arnt always indicative of power. Consider Costello; Boss of supposedly the most powerful family, yet in order to neutralize a capo in his own family (Genovese)he has to okay a hit on a Boss (Mangano) because he needs Anastasia's MUSCLE?


This is true but a lot changed for Costello during that time. Moretti who was his main muscle was losing his health, Adonis who had an army with him as well was deported as well as Luciano not to mention all the Jewish Murder Inc. guys dried up so Costello's only real remaining muscle was Albert especially because Costello was never a big time street guy I don't think he connected with the rank and file button guys who were the killers as Genovese would have by being a Capo but also by having it in his pocket that he once was underboss it could be more convincing then by saying I should be boss "just cause" a la Gotti
Posted By: OldSmoke

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
To say the "Genovese Family" controlled New York to me is a little naive.First, during the Luciano era, in order for the Genovese and Luchesse families to become what they are today a few things had to happen first.First Dutch Schutlz had to die and they absorb his Bronx and Harlem rackets. Then Louis Lepke had to die and they absorbed his Harlem and Garment center rackets. Then Longy Zwillman had to die so they could absorb the jersey rackets. Those three guys were as powerful as anyone in CN. I say Gambino was hands down more powerful for no other reason that he really pursued power. The Genovese Family was always the most americanized, hence more businessmen more business focused.After Luciano was sent away, Costello spent more time worring about his own interest and trying to fit in with high society. Lansky is off making Cuba deals and whatnot, Bugsy went Hollywood. During this time i really believe its the profaci bonnano power that is really running the commision. I dont think its any coincidence Carlo spent so much time using the commision authority to weaken profaci and bonnano...


Zwillman didn't die until the 50s, so taking over his rackets ha nothing to do with Luciano himself
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 10:38 PM

What follows is my opinion. I don't purport to have the last word in this debate.

Quote:
Very simple at the height of each other's power who was A- Making the most money. B- Exerted more influence over all of LCN. C- Overall the most powerful boss.


We can hardly know who was making the most money.

Carlo Gambino was more like the boss of bosses....of New York City. He ruled the 5 families more than all of American Cosa Nostra.

Lucky Luciano on the other hand had nationwide alliances, but not just that, he and his clique told the rest, nationwide, how to sort out their affairs. Carlo never did that. Carlo was simply well positioned in an already existing order set up by someone else.

Overall which was more powerful?

I think Luciano. Why?

Carlo Gambino's power may have stemmed from his blood relations to the Sicilian trans-Atlantic mafia clans, the Gambinos, Spatollas, the Inzerillos, and the DiMaggios. He might have also had some high level contact in US government somewhere.

Lucky Luciano on the other hand had the same Sicilian mafia clan backing (the Cupola), backing from the Jews whose job was to do nothing but kill, backing from his own mafia family, backing from the mafia families of his allies, and also his US government contacts. He was far more connected and influential than Carlo even though it was not through blood ties.

The whole reason Lucky was able to commandeer the mafia was because his power originated from outside of it [with the Jews under Meyer Lansky].

Carlo was in a sense a vassal of the mafia families he represented in the United States. Because they were his power, he had to go along with them. Lucky Luciano on the other hand was more an independent operator.

Power. People say Carlo was stronger because he ruled longer, because Luciano spent time in prison and was deported. But Carlo too was an illegal alien. He was a prisoner in the United States and could not readily leave. To do so meant he might not be able to re-enter. Luciano was free to travel the world after deportation. And for all the time Carlo ruled the 5 families, Luciano spend plenty of time outside of the United States enjoying some sort of immunity...as a bonafide viable mafia boss who was very much still in business. Could Carlo bust out of jail like in a Monopoly game with a get out of jail free card like Luciano? No. That's why Carlo stayed out of jail, cause he knew once he went in, he didn't have enough juice or connections to get out again.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
I am always confused as to why people assume Lucky was the most powerful boss of his time. Influential yes but most powerful?
Im saying no...


No confusion needed. Most bosses are either one of two types. They either rely on others to fight their battles and win wars by scheming, or they will kill you themselves. Luciano was both.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 10:47 PM

Quote:
That said, I think the Luciano/Costello/Lansky triumvirate was the most intelligent in the history of organized crime.


Cosign. Two heads are often smarter than one. And three is even smarter.

For me though, the core brain of it all was binary: Luciano/Lansky.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 10:50 PM

Quote:
Carlo Gambino died in his own bed in the country of his choosing.


Not exactly. Carlo Gambino was probably what we call an illegal alien today. If he had left the United States, it would be difficult for him to return. So he was very much a prisoner in the United States.

He could leave of course, and he might have done so and returned more than once, but he took a risk each time. Not being able to return meant that he would forfeit the kingdom he was sitting atop of.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
My thing is he seems to get way too much credit.Like did Lucky come up with the commision idea? Or was it an extension of the 7 Group idea proposed by Johnny Torrio to cut down the bootlegging competition?


Does it matter who came up with the idea versus who had he muscle to implement it?

Quote:
i also think its a little naive to say Lucky controlled these guys, more like they listened to him because HE WASNT TRYING TO RUN EVERYTHING like a genovese.


Well just list the names. Almost everyone around Luciano was either inferior in rank to him in mafia family structure, or a subordinate outsider of non Italian ethnicity, or an inferior mafia boss with fewer soldiers, etc.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 11:03 PM

Quote:
achieved more wealth than Luciano ever dreamed of


Turnbull, you do realize that both Carlo and Luciano shared the same source of profit in their most lucrative racket...heroin?

Many people, especially after many of these writers have come out to diminish Luciano's criminal scope, many see Luciano as sort of a retired mafia boss when he was in Italy. Utterly untrue. He was still in the mafia, and he was making boatloads of money the whole time he was out in Italy.
Posted By: pmac

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 11:32 PM

Read a old article after some years after lucky died Carlo had his body flown back to NY and had him burried there and had a whole funeral for hid and he was the speaker. Eulogy.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
For me though, the core brain of it all was binary.

Binary? Are you sure you're not a street guy, Alfa?

Because I distinctly remember playing cards at Rudy's old Club Arthur one night. This was many, many years ago. And a friendly debate broke out as to the word's meaning.

The general consensus was that it was a form of Traveler's Diarrhea.
Posted By: Camarel

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 11:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Quote:
achieved more wealth than Luciano ever dreamed of


Turnbull, you do realize that both Carlo and Luciano shared the same source of profit in their most lucrative racket...heroin?

Many people, especially after many of these writers have come out to diminish Luciano's criminal scope, many see Luciano as sort of a retired mafia boss when he was in Italy. Utterly untrue. He was still in the mafia, and he was making boatloads of money the whole time he was out in Italy.


How do you know this exactly? What is your source, also who is the source this info came to whichever author you read this from?

There is a lot wrong with what you've said here as far as I can tell. First of all is your attempt to diminish the fact that Carlo died in his bed without spending much time in prison. I honestly had to read what you said three times to make sure I wasn't seeing things. Carlo decided not to go to jail because he was afraid he didn't have the power to get released? That's a half baked theory if I've ever seen one lol .

I know I'm being a bit crazy here, but how about Carlo like most people didn't want to go to prison because its fucking horrible? I'm under no illusions that Carlo was some supreme all powerful gangster that completely owned NYC, but I fear you may believe in the same sense on Luciano.

As Pizzaboy has said a million times these "vs threads" are fucking pointless. Still the "mafia jerkoff circle" that was forming here was too hard (no pun intended) to ignore.
Posted By: Sonny_Black

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/21/15 11:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Lucky Luciano on the other hand had the same Sicilian mafia clan backing (the Cupola)


The Cupola was not yet created during Lucky's tenure as boss. I'm also not sure whether he had explicit backing of Sicillian clans. It seems his ties to Sicily were slim, he was very much Americanized. After his deportation he settled in Naples.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 02:49 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
For me though, the core brain of it all was binary.

Binary? Are you sure you're not a street guy, Alfa?

Because I distinctly remember playing cards at Rudy's old Club Arthur one night. This was many, many years ago. And a friendly debate broke out as to the word's meaning.

The general consensus was that it was a form of Traveler's Diarrhea.


lol<LOL
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 03:05 AM

Ok Camarel, it's you, and me! wink

Originally Posted By: Camarel
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Quote:
achieved more wealth than Luciano ever dreamed of


Turnbull, you do realize that both Carlo and Luciano shared the same source of profit in their most lucrative racket...heroin?

Many people, especially after many of these writers have come out to diminish Luciano's criminal scope, many see Luciano as sort of a retired mafia boss when he was in Italy. Utterly untrue. He was still in the mafia, and he was making boatloads of money the whole time he was out in Italy.


How do you know this exactly? What is your source, also who is the source this info came to whichever author you read this from?


Salvadore Vizzini traced the serial numbers of money Luciano gave him directly to a heroin deal. The way Vizzini got the money was to ask Luciano for change because he wanted bills in larger denominations. And that's just one piece of evidence. There are others, like the fact that Carlo Gambino was visiting Lucky Luciano in Italy, like the fact that the authorities in Italy claim they were actually about to arrest Luciano for trafficking once and for all, etc etc etc.

Quote:
There is a lot wrong with what you've said here as far as I can tell. First of all is your attempt to diminish the fact that Carlo died in his bed without spending much time in prison. I honestly had to read what you said three times to make sure I wasn't seeing things. Carlo decided not to go to jail because he was afraid he didn't have the power to get released? That's a half baked theory if I've ever seen one lol .


The only way for me to reply to this part is to repeat myself. There really isn't much more to add to it. Carlo Gambino was already in a prison of sorts. Think about it. I do think he left the United States, but later on when the heat got turned up, he couldn't leave because the government was looking to nail him on anything, even immigration. So now you know why he acted like a passive old man with a perpetual grin...he was stuck here. Trapped in the mafia, and trapped in the United States.

Quote:
I know I'm being a bit crazy here, but how about Carlo like most people didn't want to go to prison because its fucking horrible? I'm under no illusions that Carlo was some supreme all powerful gangster that completely owned NYC, but I fear you may believe in the same sense on Luciano.


Naw, Luciano was just "Lucky". wink

But so was Carlo. That's why we have this thread. If anyone was almost as well situated to control the underworld as Lucky Luciano, it would be individuals such as Carlo Gambino, and the like. Carlo Gambino was situated at the center of power in the world of the mafia due to his pedigree and family ties. Becoming a Capo and patiently putting up with Anastasia's BS also helped a lot. But just like someone said, Luciano was the only individual Anastasia probably feared. Once Luciano went to Italy, Albert started getting out of hand and had to be whacked. If Luciano doesn't go to Italy, Albert lives, and Carlo remains a Captain.

Quote:
As Pizzaboy has said a million times these "vs threads" are fucking pointless. Still the "mafia jerkoff circle" that was forming here was too hard (no pun intended) to ignore.


That, was not even necessary. You are taking this way too personally.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 04:16 AM

Quote:
The only way for me to reply to this part is to repeat myself. There really isn't much more to add to it. Carlo Gambino was already in a prison of sorts. Think about it. I do think he left the United States, but later on when the heat got turned up, he couldn't leave because the government was looking to nail him on anything, even immigration. So now you know why he acted like a passive old man with a perpetual grin...he was stuck here. Trapped in the mafia, and trapped in the United States.


That definitely is an interesting way to put it and there is a lot of truth in that. However freedom is still freedom and in prison there surely is NO FREEDOM. I think that perpetual grin was because while he was trapped by lost enforcement and boxed in, he still was FREE and free to continue to be in complete control (Relative) of LCN which is what he always desired.

Quote:
As Pizzaboy has said a million times these "vs threads" are fucking pointless.


Bottom line these were the two most powerful bosses ever in LCN. That is pretty much undisputed. I was simply curious to see where everyone stood on these particular two. No we aren't having a fuckin NCAA tournament of Mafia members..

Quote:
Still the "mafia jerkoff circle" that was forming here was too hard (no pun intended) to ignore.


How we go from who had more power in there respective reigns Luciano or Gambino to You using the words "Jerk Off Circle" and "hard" in the same sentence, I think speaks for itself so I'm going to leave that alone.

From not really postin and just watching the boards, there are some guys on here that def kno there stuff so I was just curious what
those
would say.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 04:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Quote:
That said, I think the Luciano/Costello/Lansky triumvirate was the most intelligent in the history of organized crime.


Cosign. Two heads are often smarter than one. And three is even smarter.

For me though, the core brain of it all was binary: Luciano/Lansky.


That's true the brain was Luciano/Lansky/Costello

But the perfect balance of Lansky with the finance, Costello with the police corruption and political protection, Genovese with the muscle and Luciano as the unique puzzle piece to fit them all together to create that perfect balance that was never duplicated.
Posted By: Camarel

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 04:34 AM

Alfa its really annoying to quote you on my tablet so I'll just C+P your comments bolded.

Salvadore Vizzini traced the serial numbers of money Luciano gave him directly to a heroin deal. The way Vizzini got the money was to ask Luciano for change because he wanted bills in larger denominations. And that's just one piece of evidence. There are others, like the fact that Carlo Gambino was visiting Lucky Luciano in Italy, like the fact that the authorities in Italy claim they were actually about to arrest Luciano for trafficking once and for all, etc etc etc.

The Vizzini part is very interesting and something I'd never heard before. Can I ask where you got that from? When and where has it been conclusively proven that Carlo met Luciano in Italy? By the part you responded to I assume it was after Carlo became boss? Proof for either of these claims would be nice.

The only way for me to reply to this part is to repeat myself. There really isn't much more to add to it. Carlo Gambino was already in a prison of sorts. Think about it. I do think he left the United States, but later on when the heat got turned up, he couldn't leave because the government was looking to nail him on anything, even immigration. So now you know why he acted like a passive old man with a perpetual grin...he was stuck here. Trapped in the mafia, and trapped in the United States.

As you said you are repeating yourself. This is pure speculation, of the faulty kind if you ask me.


Naw, Luciano was just "Lucky". wink

But so was Carlo. That's why we have this thread. If anyone was almost as well situated to control the underworld as Lucky Luciano, it would be individuals such as Carlo Gambino, and the like. Carlo Gambino was situated at the center of power in the world of the mafia due to his pedigree and family ties. Becoming a Capo and patiently putting up with Anastasia's BS also helped a lot. But just like someone said, Luciano was the only individual Anastasia probably feared. Once Luciano went to Italy, Albert started getting out of hand and had to be whacked. If Luciano doesn't go to Italy, Albert lives, and Carlo remains a Captain
.

Not sure how any of this relates to anything? How exactly was Luciano the only person Anastasia feared? I know this is all opinions given the small amount of info we have from this time, but sometimes you have to qualify your opinions with..... Something!

That, was not even necessary. You are taking this way too personally.

Wasn't taking it personally at all; not sure how that's possible in my case tbh. Anyway I apologize if I offended you.
Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Camarel
Not sure how any of this relates to anything? How exactly was Luciano the only person Anastasia feared? I know this is all opinions given the small amount of info we have from this time, but sometimes you have to qualify your opinions with..... Something!


I'll take this one.

The assertion that Albert feared/respected Luciano enough to control him was demonstrated by a number of different instances to back up that assertion. Albert was one of the first men to know about Luciano's plan to remove Masseria and switch to Maranzano's faction. He pledged loyalty to Luciano that he would kill whomever necessary for Luciano to get to the top. Evident by him being included in the Masseria hit.

Luciano then chose Albert to lead the Italian faction of Murder Inc. along with Lepke to run the Jewish faction.

One of the proposed murders was the potential murder of Dewey who Dutch Schultz wanted killed. Albert agreed with Dutch and worked out a plan where it was possible to knock off Dewey. Fearing the heat it would bring Luciano would call it off.

Years later after Luciano is deported, Albert who by now is boss of the Gambino family orders the hit on a civilian, Albert Schuster because he "ratted" on a bank robber.

Do you really think it possible that if Luciano called off the Dewey murder because there was too much heat, he would allow Albert to commit an essentially random murder of a state witness that had nothing to do with the Organization.
That perfectly shows the difference Luciano played in Albert's behavior.

Furthermore, Albert played a vital role in the plan to get Luciano sprung from prison...

I could go on and on about the examples that show the level of fear/respect Albert had for Luciano.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 06:31 AM

My point was the Jersey Genovese were a combination of crews absorbed over time, Zwillmans death no doubt opened up a lot...
Posted By: Camarel

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 06:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D
Originally Posted By: Camarel
Not sure how any of this relates to anything? How exactly was Luciano the only person Anastasia feared? I know this is all opinions given the small amount of info we have from this time, but sometimes you have to qualify your opinions with..... Something!


I'll take this one.

The assertion that Albert feared/respected Luciano enough to control him was demonstrated by a number of different instances to back up that assertion. Albert was one of the first men to know about Luciano's plan to remove Masseria and switch to Maranzano's faction. He pledged loyalty to Luciano that he would kill whomever necessary for Luciano to get to the top. Evident by him being included in the Masseria hit.

Luciano then chose Albert to lead the Italian faction of Murder Inc. along with Lepke to run the Jewish faction.

One of the proposed murders was the potential murder of Dewey who Dutch Schultz wanted killed. Albert agreed with Dutch and worked out a plan where it was possible to knock off Dewey. Fearing the heat it would bring Luciano would call it off.

Years later after Luciano is deported, Albert who by now is boss of the Gambino family orders the hit on a civilian, Albert Schuster because he "ratted" on a bank robber.

Do you really think it possible that if Luciano called off the Dewey murder because there was too much heat, he would allow Albert to commit an essentially random murder of a state witness that had nothing to do with the Organization.
That perfectly shows the difference Luciano played in Albert's behavior.

Furthermore, Albert played a vital role in the plan to get Luciano sprung from prison...

I could go on and on about the examples that show the level of fear/respect Albert had for Luciano.


Ugh... OK crazy panic uhwhat

Everything here needs sourced. Everything you said here is horrible and you should be ashamed lol .

Ugh.... Toodles rolleyes
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 06:46 AM

Okay, when u say inferior, you have to take into account who you are talking about.Joe Adonis got paid for every car Ford made. Anastasia had like the whole of the brooklyn docks,half of Profaci's life was a model for the Godfather (Think about that a little while...)Bonnano was a Boss at 26,Luchesse was as politically astute as Costello, as business savvy as Luciano, more low key than both, cunning as Genovese and as feared a killer as Anastasia in his prime. Marcello runs a whole STATE, and Trafficante has the whole carribean basically. Maggaddino controls the canadian border, all kinds of smuggling. Those jewish clevemand mobsters that financed part of vegas? There were Too many heavy hitters back then to call anyone inferior, THIS is what luciano realized, if u try to muscle all these guys you would end up deader than dead...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:00 AM

Bonnano and Luciano (really more Bonnano cause he was way more
'Sicily" than Luciano)helped set up the cupola during that trip to Sicily no?
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:15 AM

Fantastic points made Alfa, couple few things though, the cupola backed Luciano cause of Bonnano. Luciano in the U.S. operated whats called a "Power Syndicate" in that he controlled territory and the activities that occured in said territories. In Italy Luciano operated an "Enterprise syndicate" in that he controlled prodution and supply of narcotics but not distribution. This is actually the great problem of narcotics in the mob, when the bossed have vertical and horizontal control, they are for it, but if they dont control supply and distribution eventually a faction gains enough strenght to overpower you. Also to the point of power, Luciano was slapped in the face in Italy by some common thug, now this guy ended up dead, but that shit would of NEVER happened in the states...
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Dazzlin_Vinny_D
That definitely is an interesting way to put it and there is a lot of truth in that. However freedom is still freedom and in prison there surely is NO FREEDOM. I think that perpetual grin was because while he was trapped by lost enforcement and boxed in, he still was FREE and free to continue to be in complete control (Relative) of LCN which is what he always desired.


Agreed. That grin also meant he was getting away with boatloads of crimes.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Sonny_Black
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Lucky Luciano on the other hand had the same Sicilian mafia clan backing (the Cupola)


The Cupola was not yet created during Lucky's tenure as boss.


You know what, I am really not sure. I read somewhere that Luciano's presence in Italy had a lot to do with the very formation of the Cupola, the Sicilian Commission. I checked the unreliable Wikipedia in regards to your comment, and it says that 1965 was the first time the Cupola became known to the public, not when it began. Does anyone here have an earlier date for it's origin?
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:27 AM

Also to the point of Luciano and Italy, Genovese i feel was MUCH better connected there,and once he put his narcotics supply routes together with his control of territory in Manhattan,Power really started to realign in New York. GENOVESE AND Luchesse families running huge dope operations with guys like Ormento and sal mongevero.Bonnano is in this mix too, and Luchesse has the political connects to keep it all quiet. Galante is in there too but his role always seemed murkey to me,i guess he handled importation in montreal, ormrnto distribution in harlem,Genovese had connects to both imports as well as territory,so eventually became the top dope man...
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:39 AM

Quote:
The Vizzini part is very interesting and something I'd never heard before. Can I ask where you got that from? When and where has it been conclusively proven that Carlo met Luciano in Italy? By the part you responded to I assume it was after Carlo became boss? Proof for either of these claims would be nice.


I got it from Salvadore Vizzini's book: Vizzini: The Secret Lives of America's Most Successful Undercover Agent

Vizzini went on to become a very high ranking police official in the United States. He was a member of the DEA before it was called DEA. He was under Anslinger (Luciano: "Asslinger") in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He recounted murders he committed in the name of the law in that book, acts of espionage such as blowing up a drug warehouse and kiling everyone in it. Vizzini featured photos of himself and Luciano together in Italy. His cover was an identity named Mike Cerra, a Sicilian American US Airforce pilot. But Vizzini couldn't fly a plane. He wanted to lure Luciano in under the pretense that as a pilot he could probably move weight for him. The point here is that Vizzini backs up what he says, and his story jibes with Luciano's prison break courtesy of the OSS (CIA predecessor), Luciano's hatred for Anslinger, and even the willful blindness of the FBI. Vizzini's story contradicts none of the more well known Lucky Luciano lore.

Putting it all together, I'd say Lucky's contacts in government were in the FBI, OSS, and Navy Intelligence. Carlo's was CIA (OSS).

Can I prove Carlo met Luciano in Italy? Not by the standards of this board and forum. I read it. That's all.

Here, read this...

Carlo Gambino Traveled to Italy to Meet Lucky Luciano

"According to the FBI files:

"During the spring of 1948, reliable information obtained from a Bureau of Narcotics source indicated that CARLO GAMBINO travelled clandestinely to Palermo, Sicily, where he joined his brother, PAUL GAMBINO, who had fled to Italy to avoid prosecution in a Federal alcohol tax case. The GAMBINOS were reported to exercise control over the narcotic smuggling activities between the Mafia element in Palermo and the United States on behalf of SALVATORE LUCANIA and during 1948, both GAMBINO brothers met with LUCANIA at the home of their relatives in Palermo, Sicily. "
Posted By: Dwalin2011

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

You know what, I am really not sure. I read somewhere that Luciano's presence in Italy had a lot to do with the very formation of the Cupola, the Sicilian Commission. I checked the unreliable Wikipedia in regards to your comment, and it says that 1965 was the first time the Cupola became known to the public, not when it began. Does anyone here have an earlier date for it's origin?

I am not sure when it was created, but it surely existed before the Ciaculli massacre in 1963 and the mafia war that started around that time. It was temporarily disbanded after the police crackdowns and the Cupola members being placed on the wanted list. Salvatore Greco was the first chairman. However, this is the provincial Palermo Cupola. As for the Regional Commission which included representatives of all provinces, I am not sure whether it existed before the 60s. Im sure though in some book (maybe the one based on Antonino Carderone's testimony), it was said there have already been a representative of the whole region, somebody named Andrea Fazio from Trapani.
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, I don't own many of the books, have to check in libraries again.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:41 AM

Another point i feel has to be made; When Anastasia gets wacked, Carlo is Not the Top Boss yet; Consider that Trafficante was on the scene, also consider that the main cog in getting Albert hit was that he thought cause he was a boss in New York that he was Entitled to a piece of Cuba. DEAD FUCKIN WRONG.This was Trafficantes domain, and if the commision couldnt or wouldnt save him, its a clear indication of This guys POWER AT THAT TIME. Again these were Heavy hitters, u dont "Control" these guys, they respect u based on the fact that that respect is returned, This is what Luciano got that guys like Masseria Maranzano and Genovese didnt or couldnt. Carlo i think becomes top dog in New York at Little Appalacian after Luchesse dies, and even at this point in mob history i think his power is still less than the "JFK THREE", Giancana, Marcello, Trafficante...
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:42 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Fantastic points made Alfa, couple few things though, the cupola backed Luciano cause of Bonnano. Luciano in the U.S. operated whats called a "Power Syndicate" in that he controlled territory and the activities that occured in said territories. In Italy Luciano operated an "Enterprise syndicate" in that he controlled prodution and supply of narcotics but not distribution. This is actually the great problem of narcotics in the mob, when the bossed have vertical and horizontal control, they are for it, but if they dont control supply and distribution eventually a faction gains enough strenght to overpower you. Also to the point of power, Luciano was slapped in the face in Italy by some common thug, now this guy ended up dead, but that shit would of NEVER happened in the states...


Good points, but remember how Anastasia made like he was about to slap Carlo in public and he cringed? Same difference. Good points though about the dynamics of trafficking.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:43 AM

Thanks!
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:51 AM

Hey while we are on the subject of Power, does anyone have any kind of clarification on Joe Adonis? He seems to be interchangebly referred to in history as being subbordinate to the bosses (Like he was never Head of a Family)and at a the same time a Commision member, or at least some thing like Vito or Anastasia or Luchesse, like a leuitenant with commision level Power, any thoughts???
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 07:56 AM

Good points about controlling heavy hitters. I think that's mostly right. But what you described is how a boss relates to the heavy hitter, not entirely why they retain superiority over said hitter.

For Luciano to keep someone like Albert in check and in line with his agenda, he not only needed to reciprocate respect with Albert. Albert also needed to understand that Luciano could inflict much worse punishment on Albert than just killing him. On Luciano's level and Lansky's level, reigning over maniacs meant you had to represent the unthinkable.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:01 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Hey while we are on the subject of Power, does anyone have any kind of clarification on Joe Adonis? He seems to be interchangebly referred to in history as being subbordinate to the bosses (Like he was never Head of a Family)and at a the same time a Commision member, or at least some thing like Vito or Anastasia or Luchesse, like a leuitenant with commision level Power, any thoughts???


I personally have concluded that Joe Adonis was a supervisor (Capo) of narcotics trafficking in the NY docks, and later also in Italy after he was deported. I don't have a lot of proof. Drug capos are special capos. They are very rich, and they answer directly to the boss.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:16 AM

Another ive been pondering for a while; You know the story of how Joe the Boss meets with Lucky to get him to join his family and Lucky says eveything in the pot except for the whisky? This never made any sense to me, I think the thing, the reason Joe the Boss wanted him, the real power Luciano brought to the mob, and the Real racket that Luciano was holding back was the Heroine that he Lansky and Rothstien were smuggling from China. I think the Jews had the monopoly, Lucky was close to them and when he started to move shit in manhattan and make that money the Italians got very jealous and started to really putt the pressure on, they might have set him up with those police that scarred him up. This is one of the few things I think they got right on Boardwalk Empire...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:17 AM

Agreed Alfa,Ive read Adonis smuggled dope in Ford Motors across country...
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:29 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Agreed Alfa,Ive read Adonis smuggled dope in Ford Motors across country...


Never heard that before. Doesn't surprise me a bit.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:40 AM

Another good point Alfa reguarding controlling people, its like the great quote from Boarwalk from Nucky Thompson, "How the fuck do you ORDER someone to commit murder?" Its LIKE THE Machiavelli quote,"There can be no proper relation between one who is armed and one who is not; One who is unarmed cannot win the esteem of one who is armed, nor can one who is unarmed ever feel comfort in the company of one who is armed; Basically first off Killers respect killers. After that a guy will listen to you out of a sense of his own well being, its Beneficial for himself to do so.So a guy listens out of fear of what you might do to him, OR losing the resources, lifestyle, and or opportunities you can provide. Anastasias and the like were not afraid of anything on earth. They Follwed Lucky cause they knew Lucky wanted everyone to eat, and they were smart enough to understand this was a rare thing amongst criminals. Contrast this with Profaci who starved his soldiers, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT ONLY CAUSE THE SOLDIERS FEARED RETRUBUTION, CAUSE PROFACI HAD AT LEAST TWO COMMISION MEMBERS THAT FOLLOWED HIS ADVICE, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE OLD GUARD. AS SOON AS GAMBINO AND LUCHESSE GAVE THE UNDELINGS SOME INDICATION OF COMMISION BACKING, AS SOON AS THEY STOPPED FEARING RETRIBUTION, THEY WENT TO WAR. AS SOON AS GALLO AND HIS CREW REALIZED IT WASNT IN THIER BEST INTEREST TO BE LOYAL, THAT THIER LOYALTY WOULD BE REPAID WITH POVERTY, THAT WAS IT. Gangsters follow other gangsters cause they recognize qualities in others that they dont possess themselves, that leadership, that fearlessness, vision of purpose. People say Gotti was a bad boss and he was, But how many other guys unmade stand up to fuckin Carmine Galante in prison? MAYBE A SELECT FEW IN THE WHOLE FUCKIN MOB TRUTHFULLY. My point being controlling gangsters means understanding peoples desires what they want, Lucky was able to keep albert happy just letting go kill when he want, the guy had more in common with Demeo to me than anyone...
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Another ive been pondering for a while; You know the story of how Joe the Boss meets with Lucky to get him to join his family and Lucky says eveything in the pot except for the whisky? This never made any sense to me, I think the thing, the reason Joe the Boss wanted him, the real power Luciano brought to the mob, and the Real racket that Luciano was holding back was the Heroine that he Lansky and Rothstien were smuggling from China. I think the Jews had the monopoly, Lucky was close to them and when he started to move shit in manhattan and make that money the Italians got very jealous and started to really putt the pressure on, they might have set him up with those police that scarred him up. This is one of the few things I think they got right on Boardwalk Empire...


Cute how narcotics are omitted from the original mythology we were taught. Most everyone here knows narcotics were in play in the United States since the earliest days of Cosa Nostra. But narcotics are never mentioned in the Luciano Lanksy Masseria Maranzano tale.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Okay, when u say inferior, you have to take into account who you are talking about.Joe Adonis got paid for every car Ford made. Anastasia had like the whole of the brooklyn docks,half of Profaci's life was a model for the Godfather (Think about that a little while...)Bonnano was a Boss at 26,Luchesse was as politically astute as Costello, as business savvy as Luciano, more low key than both, cunning as Genovese and as feared a killer as Anastasia in his prime. Marcello runs a whole STATE, and Trafficante has the whole carribean basically. Maggaddino controls the canadian border, all kinds of smuggling. Those jewish clevemand mobsters that financed part of vegas? There were Too many heavy hitters back then to call anyone inferior, THIS is what luciano realized, if u try to muscle all these guys you would end up deader than dead...


Very true. Can't add nothing to that.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 09:28 AM

A good example is in Franzese's book; someone in the crew is going to rat and like 6 guys volunteer to kill the guy, and Michael remarks on how dependent they are on him, and desparate to kill, he says a disquieting sense of power overcame him. Now these guys dont FEAR Michael, they fear losing their lifestyle. Moreover I think the Persicos never feared Sonny the killer, Never Feared Michael the earner, but DID FEAR Sonny the killer And Micheal the earner together, which is whythey had them come separatly to the sitdown, once they saw that that they really werent on the same page, they saw them both as easily neutralized. And the Persicos should give lie to any notion of jail diminisging anyone's Power...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 09:40 AM

Also the meeting between Luciano and Gambinos rings true,cause Lucky needed thier contacts in sicily, and they were close to Luchesse, who was like the only Boss Luciano seemed to actually admire, also explains Luchesses extensive narcotics connects, they probally came from gambino, and explains why Luchesse, Gambino, and Genovese started working together around this time, Later in like 56 0r 57 the Hotel de palmes or whatever meeting happens and Luciano and Bonnano suggest the cupola...
Posted By: ht2

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 06:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

I personally have concluded that Joe Adonis was a supervisor (Capo) of narcotics trafficking in the NY docks, and later also in Italy after he was deported. I don't have a lot of proof. Drug capos are special capos. They are very rich, and they answer directly to the boss.


Sounds like you've drawn conclusions without a premise or any evidence at all. Maybe you are mixing him up with T.Bender? After his deportation to Italy there were rumors of his involvement in drug trade but I've never seen anything in the way of concrete proof. Does Vizzini's book say anything about it?

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Agreed Alfa,Ive read Adonis smuggled dope in Ford Motors across country...


Where did you read this? I don't think he would risk a legitimate business doing something this stupid. In the US he was heavy into gambling and other rackets but I've never seen him connected to drugs. Rumors surfaced some years after his deportation.
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: ht2
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

I personally have concluded that Joe Adonis was a supervisor (Capo) of narcotics trafficking in the NY docks, and later also in Italy after he was deported. I don't have a lot of proof. Drug capos are special capos. They are very rich, and they answer directly to the boss.


Sounds like you've drawn conclusions without a premise or any evidence at all. Maybe you are mixing him up with T.Bender? After his deportation to Italy there were rumors of his involvement in drug trade but I've never seen anything in the way of concrete proof. Does Vizzini's book say anything about it?



No, it doesn't come from Vizzini. It is an inference made from the fact that Adonis functioned as a Capo on the New York docks. The main thing happening on the docks was not union racketeering, nor was it hijacking of freight merchandise. The main thing happening on the docks, and still might be happening, is trafficking. Understand the Octopus. It is all one. "Satan cannot be divided against Satan." Trafficking is an international affair with several organized crime groups coordinating together. Government is involved. And the unions that run the docks on *both* shores are infiltrated by organized crime to facilitate the movement of weight by water. On this side is Cosa Nostra and maybe CIA operating through the Manhattan and Brooklyn docks and the labor unions that occupy them. That is the Luciano Family and the Mangano Family, respectively. Giuseppe Antonio Doto was a member of the Luciano Family... working the docks. On the other coast was L'Unione Corse controlling the docks in Marseille through the labor unions and having possible asisstance from French intelligence. This is what Luciano was a part of, what Carlo Gambino was a part of, and what I and the Italian authorities of the time believe Adonis was part of.
Posted By: ht2

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 09:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

No, it doesn't come from Vizzini. It is an inference made from the fact that Adonis functioned as a Capo on the New York docks. The main thing happening on the docks was not union racketeering, nor was it hijacking of freight merchandise. The main thing happening on the docks, and still might be happening, is trafficking. Understand the Octopus. It is all one. "Satan cannot be divided against Satan."


According to his biography he may have headed up the Broadway Mob during prohibition. I haven't seen anything in his bio that says he was a Capo on NY docks, although he was closely linked to Anastasia in Brooklyn. When he lived in Brooklyn he was a political fixer in the local Democratic party. I've seen him linked to gambling, cigarette vending and extortion activity but never narcotics. Any drug activity was probably compartmentalized and controlled to specific people. During prohibition the big cash cow for OC was illegal alcohol.

Valachi said during his 30 year career as a Luciano/Genovese soldier he never got involved in drugs or "junk" as he called it, until about 25 years of living that life. If you consider that he belonged to Bender's crew, this is very significant. When he was found dealing, a big fuss was made and things began to change and the attitude toward narcotics loosened up, especially when Costello was pushed aside.

Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/22/15 11:24 PM

I use the term Capo loosely. Even Adonis' mafia rank and exact position is a matter of debate.
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 06:15 AM

The Strenght Of The Wolf, A History Of America's War On Drugs, there is some fascinating shit in this book. There is a theory in the book that says Bugsy getting hit had nothing to do with Vegas, and might have been a result of him trying to muscle an intelligence network protected narcotics ring out of the west coast supplied via Mexico, with links to south-east asian communist? I gotta check the exact text. But yeah, they say Bugsys death, shot with an army carbine, was always caracterized as very "ungangster-like". More like a military, special ops kind of hit, they go on to say in the book that a lot of MOB HITS AFTER LIKE 1945 OR 47, WERE NOT;i THINK THIS EXPLAINS THE BLANKET DENIAL OF NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING, THESE TOP GUYS KNOW IF THEY TALK THE OSS,(EVENTUALLY CIA)WILL COME A CALLIN, AND THESE GUYS ARE DIFFERENT, THEY WILL SUICIDE YOU OR SOME SHIT. THINK THE SCENE IN GOOD SHEPARD WHEN MATT DAMON TALKS WITH THE OLD SCHOOL MOB GUY AND THE GUY SAYS, "YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES IM AFRAID OF, YOU START THE REAL WARS".... BUT YEAH, THIS BOOK IS ALL ABOUT THE FBN (PREDECCESOR OF THE DEA)UNRAVELLING DRUG NETWORKS, AND BEING THRWARTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AN THE COMPLICIT GOVERNMENT, SCARY READ....
Posted By: SonnyBlackstein

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 06:19 AM

Umm ... Huh?
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 06:23 AM

Risk a legitimate business? I dont want to sound patronizing but you sound painfully naive. This is Jimmy Hoffa Detroit we are talking about. Gaetano Badalamenti I believe was moving shit through this city, via Wndsor,there was a guy John Priziola? And a Quasarano, big time dealers. Joe Adonis provided Ford with labor peace, dont tell me that sounds farfetched to you with everything we know about thte time period. And Junior Soprano was right about heroin, " Back in the 50s it was raining cash, every one it thier mom was gettin rich off of dealin h". This is hard to accept, why exactly????
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 06:25 AM

I also read the Joe Adonis thing in Mafia Summit i believe...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 07:39 AM

And again, its no coincidence they had the Detroit Boss stand up and talk in the Godfather...
Posted By: CabriniGreen

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 07:49 AM

umm Yeah, Dude, yall should read up some more, do ya googles lol...
Posted By: mickey2

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Originally Posted By: ht2
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

I personally have concluded that Joe Adonis was a supervisor (Capo) of narcotics trafficking in the NY docks, and later also in Italy after he was deported. I don't have a lot of proof. Drug capos are special capos. They are very rich, and they answer directly to the boss.


Sounds like you've drawn conclusions without a premise or any evidence at all. Maybe you are mixing him up with T.Bender? After his deportation to Italy there were rumors of his involvement in drug trade but I've never seen anything in the way of concrete proof. Does Vizzini's book say anything about it?



No, it doesn't come from Vizzini. It is an inference made from the fact that Adonis functioned as a Capo on the New York docks. The main thing happening on the docks was not union racketeering, nor was it hijacking of freight merchandise. The main thing happening on the docks, and still might be happening, is trafficking. Understand the Octopus. It is all one. "Satan cannot be divided against Satan." Trafficking is an international affair with several organized crime groups coordinating together. Government is involved. And the unions that run the docks on *both* shores are infiltrated by organized crime to facilitate the movement of weight by water. On this side is Cosa Nostra and maybe CIA operating through the Manhattan and Brooklyn docks and the labor unions that occupy them. That is the Luciano Family and the Mangano Family, respectively. Giuseppe Antonio Doto was a member of the Luciano Family... working the docks. On the other coast was L'Unione Corse controlling the docks in Marseille through the labor unions and having possible asisstance from French intelligence. This is what Luciano was a part of, what Carlo Gambino was a part of, and what I and the Italian authorities of the time believe Adonis was part of.


CIA was founded in '47, so i don't think at all they were in any kind involved. Besides, the mob would've never knowingly worked with the govt back then. The Castro hits are an entirely different matter. But I agree to your octopus metaphor, i guess you read Sterling's book? She's a bit quick and loose in her conclusions in my mind. Anyways, Adonis was '56 deported and the international sicily-marseille-newyork drug connection was created in late '57, so if, Adonis was only in local, small scale drug trafficking locally on the docks involved. that would be my bet.
Posted By: ht2

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 06/23/15 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
Risk a legitimate business? I dont want to sound patronizing but you sound painfully naive. This is Jimmy Hoffa Detroit we are talking about. Gaetano Badalamenti I believe was moving shit through this city, via Wndsor,there was a guy John Priziola? And a Quasarano, big time dealers. Joe Adonis provided Ford with labor peace, dont tell me that sounds farfetched to you with everything we know about thte time period. And Junior Soprano was right about heroin, " Back in the 50s it was raining cash, every one it thier mom was gettin rich off of dealin h". This is hard to accept, why exactly????


What I meant was too much negative attention would cause Ford motor to give him the boot, which is what happened. I believe one of the reasons Adonis was upset with Kefauver hearings was that at all the negative publicity would cause him to give up his legitimate holding in NJ. He most likely needed it to justify his income to the IRS. I asked you where you read your info and you give me a quote from Junior Soprano?
Posted By: Alfa Romeo

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 07/07/15 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: mickey2
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo
Originally Posted By: ht2
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

I personally have concluded that Joe Adonis was a supervisor (Capo) of narcotics trafficking in the NY docks, and later also in Italy after he was deported. I don't have a lot of proof. Drug capos are special capos. They are very rich, and they answer directly to the boss.


Sounds like you've drawn conclusions without a premise or any evidence at all. Maybe you are mixing him up with T.Bender? After his deportation to Italy there were rumors of his involvement in drug trade but I've never seen anything in the way of concrete proof. Does Vizzini's book say anything about it?



No, it doesn't come from Vizzini. It is an inference made from the fact that Adonis functioned as a Capo on the New York docks. The main thing happening on the docks was not union racketeering, nor was it hijacking of freight merchandise. The main thing happening on the docks, and still might be happening, is trafficking. Understand the Octopus. It is all one. "Satan cannot be divided against Satan." Trafficking is an international affair with several organized crime groups coordinating together. Government is involved. And the unions that run the docks on *both* shores are infiltrated by organized crime to facilitate the movement of weight by water. On this side is Cosa Nostra and maybe CIA operating through the Manhattan and Brooklyn docks and the labor unions that occupy them. That is the Luciano Family and the Mangano Family, respectively. Giuseppe Antonio Doto was a member of the Luciano Family... working the docks. On the other coast was L'Unione Corse controlling the docks in Marseille through the labor unions and having possible asisstance from French intelligence. This is what Luciano was a part of, what Carlo Gambino was a part of, and what I and the Italian authorities of the time believe Adonis was part of.


CIA was founded in '47, so i don't think at all they were in any kind involved. Besides, the mob would've never knowingly worked with the govt back then. The Castro hits are an entirely different matter. But I agree to your octopus metaphor, i guess you read Sterling's book? She's a bit quick and loose in her conclusions in my mind. Anyways, Adonis was '56 deported and the international sicily-marseille-newyork drug connection was created in late '57, so if, Adonis was only in local, small scale drug trafficking locally on the docks involved. that would be my bet.


Please forgive the belated reply. I am literally back from a vacation.

You've made a very good observation about OSS being formed in 47, whilst Lucky Luciano was exonerated/deported in 46. But the intelligence community is still there, in the form of Naval Intelligence [which somehow or another advocated on Lucky's behalf to get him exonerated from prison]. Being as there is almost limitless information out there connecting the CIA with trafficking, I would say that Luciano and Co. probably had to cross paths with the OSS/CIA at some point in some mutually beneficial way.
Posted By: Belette

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 07/07/15 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Dwalin2011
Originally Posted By: Alfa Romeo

You know what, I am really not sure. I read somewhere that Luciano's presence in Italy had a lot to do with the very formation of the Cupola, the Sicilian Commission. I checked the unreliable Wikipedia in regards to your comment, and it says that 1965 was the first time the Cupola became known to the public, not when it began. Does anyone here have an earlier date for it's origin?

I am not sure when it was created, but it surely existed before the Ciaculli massacre in 1963 and the mafia war that started around that time. It was temporarily disbanded after the police crackdowns and the Cupola members being placed on the wanted list. Salvatore Greco was the first chairman. However, this is the provincial Palermo Cupola. As for the Regional Commission which included representatives of all provinces, I am not sure whether it existed before the 60s. Im sure though in some book (maybe the one based on Antonino Carderone's testimony), it was said there have already been a representative of the whole region, somebody named Andrea Fazio from Trapani.
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, I don't own many of the books, have to check in libraries again.


Tommaso Buschetta testified that he became friends with Luciano in Italy in the 50's and Luciano described to him the purpose of the commission in America.In 1957 he met Bonanno in Sicily and further discussed the idea of forming a Sicilian version of it. He says he also discussed it with a couple of other Americans, maybe Carlo and Paolo Gambino since he seemed to know them well and met them many times in Italy. He says he then convinced the Sicilian bosses to create the Cupola somewhat based on the American counterpart, although different in many ways.

You can read the whole testimony on 25 Years After Valachi.
Posted By: donplugconnected

Re: Don Carlo v. Lucky - 08/14/15 12:23 PM

although luciano created the modern day mafia he did hand(forcefully) over to carlo gambino. gambino maneuvered much better than luciano and did it stylishly also had much more brain than luciano(he always had meyer,castello to help him) carlo didn't have those ppl which makes it that much more respectable. carlo gambino managed to hold power much longer than luciano did too so yea CG for the win.
© 2024 GangsterBB.NET