There have been recent threads considering the "what if" regarding different matters. While it is better developed in the novel, it is still quite clear in the film that Sollozzo was trying to ascertain whether anyone from the Corleone Administration disagreed with Vito's decision to pass on the proposed drug partnership. In the novel, Sollozzo tried by asking two questions, searching the facial expressions and answers of everyone in the room. While the first question failed, the second question reeled Sonny's greed/curiosity to show that Sonny disagreed with Vito's decision. I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially the novel said it was here that Sonny Corleone made an unforgiveable lapse in judgment. By showing that he had interest in the proposal nixed by his father, Sonny gave Sollozzo leverage. Sollozzo saw that the other members of the Corleone Family were horrified by Sonny's comments of openly disagreeing with his father.

Had Santino kept his mouth shut, and assuming no other members of the Corleone Administration outwardly displayed a difference in opinion from Vito, then would Sollozzo have felt that he could have made an attempt on Vito's life? My opinion is that Santino's gaffe made it easier for Sollozzo to justify killing Vito, but that Sollozzo would have tried regardless (provided that Vito's answer was still "no.")

Sollozzo viewed Vito as an old-timer, a "Mustache Pete," who stood in the way of progress for the more "modern" Mafia, for which Sollozzo definitely considered himself. It may have been tougher to convince the other Families to go to war against the Corleone's without Sonny's gaffe, but as a matter of pure business, I think that at least the Tattaglia Family was ready to fight on Sollozzo's behalf against the Corleone's - with or without Sonny's comments. One of the underlying "principles" of La Cosa Nostra is simple: to make money. Drugs was an excellent opportunity for the Tattaglia's to make money far beyond their income from prostitution.

I also think that despite Sonny's comments, Sollozzo took Vito's "no" as an insult. He needed Vito's political influence to make his drug carriers less likely to become informants if arrested. None of the other Families had anywhere near the political influence that Vito had accumulated, so Vito's cooperation was vital to the long-term success of the drug operation. Without providing his political assistance, Sollozzo felt that Vito was inflicting harm and impinged on Sollozzo's ability to earn a living. As the novel stated, Barzini even described Vito's "no" as an act of aggression.

Your thoughts?

I can't remember which book it was but in some Mafia book an informant declared that the idea of Vito standing against all the other bosses and preventing them from doing something was ridiculous.

The other bosses , but especially Barzini and Tattaglia wanted to move up and usurp the Corleone power. Especially for Barzini, the Sollozzo gambit was a win-win proposition. Vito says yes and Barzini gets wealthier and more powerful. Vito says no and Barzini rallies the other families against him.

As Sollozzo said Vito's "no" was not realistic. It was telling Sollozzo that he couldn't make a living. Sollozzo wasn't going to tolerate that. As Tom mused in the book, outside of Luca, Sollozzo was the most dangerous looking man he'd ever seen.

So regardless of what Sonny said, Sollozzo had already decided to move on Vito if he gave the wrong answer.

Sonny's interjection likely made Sollozzo assume (wrongly) that with the successful removal of Vito that Sonny would more or less go along with the program, even with his storied irrational nature, because ultimately such a move was good for business. This is detailed more in the book where Sonny says that if his father died that he'd be way too busy trying to hold on to the Corleone holdings to consider expansion or revenge and that even if the Corleone Family did manage to stick together the other Families wouldn't tolerate a war launched years later purely out of spite.

So maybe Sonny's blurted comment made Sollozzo move up the planned date. Or maybe that was enough to convince a skeptical Barzini or Tattaglia to give their final blessings to the move.

"Look, his own son wants the deal!!!"

Sollozzo wants what he wants and will do anything to get it.. even though vito wasnt going to be a brick wall stopping him in his tracks, he didnt want a speed bump down the road either... Sollozzo's drugs would have made it to the corleon's turf. a war would have begun and by than Sollozzo may have been too strong to stop. he just thought by sunny making his comments that he had the best chance while it was still fresh in sunny's mind

Vito's "no" put Sol (and presumably Tatt) in an inimical position: either crawl back into your hole and forget about drugs, or do something else. The something else could have been to assassinate Vito. But, I'm guessing, the other Dons would have been reluctant to go to war against the most powerful family if Sonny hadn't made his gaffe. But Barzini probably would have stepped into the "mediator" role he played later, and demanded a Commission meeting like the one we saw to reason with Vito.

The gaffe emboldened Sol to tell Tatt and Barzini that there'd be no war because Sonny was hot for his deal. Here Sol made a fundamental mistake: while he correctly anticipated Sonny's temper (and brilliantly warned him not to lose it--playing on Sonny's need to keep his head clear as acting Don), he hadn't counted on Vito's survival. What's more, he didn't anticipate that, even if Vito had died, Sonny would be loathe to go for his deal because Tessio, Clemenza and others under him would suspect that he secretly welcomed Vito's demise, and wouldn't support him.

That's basically what FDR did to the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, and what Lincoln did to the Confederates before the Civil War. Both the Confederates and the Japanese basically had to either shoot or back down.

Interesting hypothetical, TB. Let's take it a step further.

At the Commission meeting, Vito agrees to make the peace by offering "to give up protection in the East." But, as he says later, he was motivated by the desire to protect Michael. Let's say that the meeting happens before the Sollozzo killing. Sonny is alive. Michael is not associated with the Family.

How does the meeting go? Does Vito, hearing the unanimity of the other Dons and Don Zalucci's testimony, agree to allow drugs? Or, not having lost any of his sons, does he continue to insist that his political protection would not assist the drug trade and stand fast against drugs?

Well, that's an intriguing one, LW.
In the novel, the Dons at the convention are described as sharing two characteristics: they're good listeners, and their wills could not be subverted except by death, or utmost reasonableness.

If the Dons' convention had been held shortly after Vito's turndown of Sol, he'd have no motivation to cave in, as he did in order to get Michael back from Sicily. But, I'm guessing, if he saw that the other Dons were lined up unanimously with Sol (not just Tatt), and that Tom and Sonny were still in favor of drugs, Vito, "a man of reasonableness," would have yielded. They'd find a face-saving accommodation: Vito would get better terms than Sol offered, with fewer risks, and the other Dons would be able to rent his judges and politicians. I think Vito at that point would have recognized that continued refusal would have resulted in a war, and that everyone would lose. As top guy, he'd have the most to lose.

Outstanding thread.

Sollozzo knew that Tom knew the drug business "was the right thing to do." And whether or not Sonny had his stupid outburst, Vito was not so sure about "this Sollozzo fella," and sent Luca on the fool's errand to the Tatt family.
My guess is that if Sonny had stayed quiet at the meeting,
Barzini would have authorized a shot across the Corleone's bow..namely delivering those dead fishes in Luca's vest.
Because Vito sent Luca to the Tatts for no good reason, he and Tom would realize the killing of Luca was "just business."
Vito was in no position to take the high ground here because he was the one who instigated the espionage. My guess is that the killing of Luca could have allowed Barzini to sweep in
and set up a negotiation with Tom in which it was made clear some kind of compromise had to be made to avoid a full scale war, and at that point a deal would hae been struck. Bottom line? If Sonny had kept his mouth shut whter would not have been a sufficient basis for Barzini to get on board with an attempt on Vito's life.

One of the great qualities of this BB is that these topics often go off on different tracks. So allow me...

DT posited that Vito sent Luca off to meet with the Tattaglia Family "for no good reason." I think that there was a tactical reason as Vito rarely too any action without a purpose. I think that Vito miscalcuated the entire Sollozzo proposition, including sending Luca to infiltrate. But had it worked and Luca struck Sollozzo down or been an effective spy, then it would have been a brilliant tactical move for the Corleone Family. Such a mole would have given the Corleone's even more power.

I know this is a pet peeve of DT, but allow my explanation to reference the novel. When Hagen told Vito that they would have to grant Sollozzo a meeting request, Vito stated that "now that the wedding will be over, set it for anytime you like." The answer told Hagen that the answer would be "no" to Sollozzo and that Vito expected the "no" to cause problems (which it did). Hagen also privately felt that Vito was wrong to decline the drug proposition and that it was one of the few times that Vito's judgment was flawed.

I think planting a mole was a great tactic, but Luca? I mean Sollozzo was so wily he knew Michael got the better of him within a second of his own death.
No way he and even Tatt Jr. did not see right through Luca. Just imagine if they strung Luca along and ordered him to do a hit on someone. Then what?

I see your point now, DT. Yes that was a bit too hard to believe that Luca would turn traitor and Sollozzo accurately saw right through it. Probably should have been someone like Al Neri or an "unknown" button to throw Sollozzo and the Corleone enemies off track.

I guess we can all agree that Tessio would have come off as a better traitor.

In my opinion I dont even think Tessio would have been believed to be a traitor at this time of the story.

I agree it should have been a button, high ranking, but a button.

What was Vito's ultimate goal in sending Luca, what was the best possible outcome he would have wanted. The thing that would have him said 'yep that worked for us100%'

My feeling is that I think Vito secretly hoped that Luca would kill Sollozzo by having Luca appear as a Corleone defector. This was a grave error on Vito's part because it cost the Corleone Family its most ruthless and feared enforcer.

As has been discussed in previous threads, one of the underlying themes of the trilogy was how characters underestimated the enemy. Vito clearly miscalculated Sollozzo and the decision to decline his offer for a drug partnership. Ultimately, it nearly cost Vito his own life and he paid the price by losing Luca Brasi.

Yes, the Don was slipping. Imagine the audacity and skill of Sollozzo in turning the Don's own driver/bodyguard against him and the Don not picking up on anything ahead of time.

Taking it a step further, let's say they bought Luca's story and Luca learned they were going forward with the drug sales without the Corleones....would Vito have started a war?

Vito told Sol that he wished him well in his business "especially since your interests don't conflict with mine." So, I'm thinking, Vito might have disapproved of the drugs biz in general, but as long as he had no direct connection with it, I don't see why he'd start a war to stop others from supporting Sol.

Big question: would he heed Tom's warning that, with the money others amassed from drugs, they'd buy more police/political protection and come after what the Corleones had?

Vito was a live and let live kinda guy, at least with people that were as dangerous as he was. If Sollozzo and Tattaglia went ahead with the drug business, for the first two-three years or so Vito would shrug his shoulders and say "let them do what they want, I don't control them".

As Vito discovered the amount of money that they were making and the fact that even some of his contacts could be swayed by Sollozzo-Tattaglia-Barzini I think he would call Tom/Sonny in and without admitting any lapse in judgment, give them permission to quietly get into the trade, behind the scenes and all that. In the interim Clemenza and Tessio would also have been dealing with complaints from the rank and file and passing those up to Vito.

Vito should have sent Fredo instead of Luca to Bruno's Mickey Mouse Club.
Fredo wasn't too hot for the deal, and he was smaht, not like everybody said.
"Me and Bruno, we're good friends, right Bruno?"
Solozzo would have underestimated Fredo. And underestimation, that's what GF is all about, right?

Goombah notes...

Quote:

Sollozzo was trying to ascertain whether anyone from the Corleone Administration disagreed with Vito's decision to pass on the proposed drug partnership.

Even before the meeting took place he already knew at least ONE person who favored his line of work. "And you knew it was the right thing to do," he says to Tom Hagen after the attempt on Don Corleone's life. Sollozzo had to know that Tom favored the deal because it was Tom that arranged the meeting between Sollozzo and Don Corleone. Sollozzo had to presume that the meeting wouldn't be set unless Tom felt the proposal had merit, and ultimately Tom's endorsement.

Sollozzo could also rightfully presume that the meeting was granted as a formality for the Don to give his blessing to the deal. In fact, that's the ONLY reason that meeting should have been granted. For Sollozzo, who Vito admitted was "a serious man, to be treated with respect," to be rejected at that meeting was an insult.

As consigliere, I would say it was Tom's obligation to make only the appointments they could keep, and to deflect all other proposals that would be unacceptable to the Don. Tom's error, which preceeded Sonny's gaffe, was to arrange the meeting at all without knowing the Don would say no.

"Could I have gotten to him ten years ago?" Sollozzo asks Tom after the hit. No, because ten years ago consigliere Genco would have known in advance the Don's position on the narcotics business, and would have anticipated Sollozzo's reaction and aggression following the rejection of his proposal, regardless of whether that rejection came from Genco or directly from the Don. Moreover, Genco "would have smelled a rat," might have understood the politics behind Sollozzo's gambit, might have sniffed-out Barzini's involvement, and definitely would have found a way to eliminate any threat posed by Sollozzo.

Quote:

Had Santino kept his mouth shut, and assuming no other members of the Corleone Administration outwardly displayed a difference in opinion from Vito, then would Sollozzo have felt that he could have made an attempt on Vito's life? My opinion is that Santino's gaffe made it easier for Sollozzo to justify killing Vito, but that Sollozzo would have tried regardless (provided that Vito's answer was still "no.")

Sollozzo was 200 tons of locomotive that wasn't going to stop for anything. There were only two options available -- derail the train or hop-on and go along for the ride. He was fully committed to expanding the drug trade and nothing would stand in the way of gaining the political protection he required. Either he gets the Don's approval, or he takes it by force.

Sonny's gaffe at the meeting wasn't the "tipping point." It was Vito's "no" that served as the tipping point that committed Sollozzo to killing Vito and forcing the rest of the Corleone family to go along for the ride.

Only Michael really understood the necessity of derailing the train to preserve the family. Win this battle and you'll win the war, and keep your family, in the long run. Negotiate with Sollozzo and you've lost.

tony b.

I respectfully disagree, YoTonyB, that it was Tom's fault to schedule the meeting or schedule "only those meetings they could keep and deflect all other proposals that would be unacceptable to the Don." In the novel, it is quite clear that the meeting is scheduled with Tom already knowing that Vito would reject it. Vito once explicitly stated no early in the novel, then later said "How can I make a decision until I know all the details?"

Another reason is also supported in the novel when Sollozzo snatches Tom after the attempted killing of Vito. Puzo states something to the effect of Hagen knew that Sollozzo would only want him to present the peace proposal to Sonny, as a good consigliere was bound to do. In other words, as consigliere, Tom was never in a position of power to make final decisions to Vito. Rather, he was supposed to give Vito his advice/counsel. I would argue that Tom did that - he stated his opinion to both Vito and when Sonny was the Don. In fact, also cited in the novel, when Vito openly asked for Tom's advice regarding the drug proposal, Tom needed to be prodded. Tom was hesitant about telling Vito his true feelings. Vito read Tom's misgivings well and said "Go ahead, Tom. Consigliere's don't always agree with their Dons all of the time."

I fully agree with your assessment that Vito's rejection of the Sollozzo proposal was the true tipping point. It set everything else in motion - Michael finally joining his brother and father in the Family, the attempt on Vito, and the ensuing war.

The thing is there would be no way Sol's business would not interfere with Vito's. They would be selling in the territories run by Tessio and Clemenza, and the Corleones would have experienced the same problems that Don from Detroit had. "For years I paid them (his people) extra..." not to sell drugs, but in the end "they can't resist. Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the Paulies of the Corleone family would get involved with drugs whether Vito liked it or not, and then Sol's interests, selling drugs, would be conflicting with Vito's: not selling.

Well DT, as TB points out, Vito did not express an objection to Sollozzo conducting his business and did not set any parameters on his doing so. Vito expressed his reasons for not agreeing to Sollozzo's requests and I don't see how we can question the words from his mouth.

I have never understood why Sollozzo would want to murder Vito if it was Vito's political and judicial help he was seeking. Sonny being "hot for my deal" does not rationalize Vito's murder either. Of course, that has been discussed extensively in other threads. But that undercuts the movies realism and logic. Perhaps it would have made more sense for Vito to have told Sollozzo that he should not operate in Corleone territories or that he would have used his power to oppose drug traffic. Now those would have been really good reasons for Sollozzo to go after Vito.

Good point, Oli, but I think the combination of Sol's temperament and Barzini's ambition is why they hit Vito. For Sol, Vito's refusal to provide political and judicial protection was an insult and very harmful to his business, so he had the motive.

For Barz this was the perfect opportunity to knock off the Don of Dons, and basically replace him without anyone other than Sol knowing who was pulling the strings. As has been discussed elsewhere Barz was probably going to eliminate Sol as soon as he could in any case.

[quote=olivant]I have never understood why Sollozzo would want to murder Vito if it was Vito's political and judicial help he was seeking. quote]

I think Sol's reasoning was that Vito put him in an inimical position: he couldn't do business without Vito's support, so for Sol it was either withdraw to Sicily with his tail twixt his legs--or try to kill Vito. His rational was as a "man of honor," plus he figured he could get the Corleones' remaining police/political protection at cut rates from the survivors.
the
But I see Barzini egging him on. Barzini would never attempt to kill Vito on his own. But if Sol were willing to, what did he have to lose? If Sol succeeded, Barz would automatically become top guy. The judges and politicians who quit the Corleones would still have kids to put through college, and would be up for grabs--meaning Barzini's money he'd be making with Sol. If Sol failed, the Corleones would come after Tattaglia. And even if it came to war (as it did), the biggest guy always has the most to lose.

[quote=Turnbull]Vito's "no" put Sol (and presumably Tatt) in an inimical position: either crawl back into your hole and forget about drugs, or do something else. The something else could have been to assassinate Vito. =quote]

I agree. Sollozzo was acting pretty much like Vito was in his early days.

I think it would have made Vito look a little anxious and bitter at that point. After a while, I feel the other Dons would have said "Look, we came to you at first to get this thing going. You say no, so we figured out a different way. Now you're out of this drug ring we got going...PLUS you lost Luca, he's more loyal to us now...since you sent him off to be a rat, remember?" So to answer your question DT if he did start one, I think the other Dons would not have been so rational the next go round, and would willingly go to war if that's what Vito wanted.

I am a big fan of this crime music blog

http://thecrimelounge.blogspot.com/

And came across another blog through it

http://atouchofbudd.blogspot.com/

Having spoke to Budd, it's got an amazing imaginary soundtrack of 'What If Vito Died and Sollozzo Lived', grew in power and stature to run most of the Heroin trade by the early 70s (giving even Frank Lucas a run for his money!)

Blaxploitaion meets French Connection styled tunes

When people gain so much power, there's not many men to stop them! - 'The Sollozzo Connection'