Excusing myself too, if this one has been discussed beford, but it's hard to find out...

What do you think had happend if Tom - after Michael asked him something like "Why don't you take your wife, your children and your mistress, accept that offer, move to vegas and be vicepresident of that hotel" - had ansered "Well, yeah, I'm gonna do it, thanks for all the time we've spent together, maybe we'll see each other again someday"?

Do you think Michael would let it pass? I mean, with all his knowledge about the Corleone business, Tom would have been a real danger for the family, an enemy that must be eliminated! Don't you think so ?

Good question, and I'm not sure what I think the answer would be.

Knowing Michael, he might've viewed it as a betrayal.

Or, given his longstanding trust for and relationship with Tom, he might've let it pass.

I agree, although by this time he had been betrayed by both his wife and his brother and in his heart could probably trust nobody, except possibly Connie. After all, his question to Tom was whether he was going to 'go along' with these things he wanted to do. If Tom's answer was no and he were to truly take the wife, mistress & family off to wherever...then his very existence could indeed be considered a threat.

So personally, I believe Michael asked the question and made the proposal knowing that Tom would never leave.

AppleOnYa

To speculate on Michael's course of action with Tom we may have to review his history with other business and personal relationships. Did Michael kill (or have killed) anyone who was NOT in direct conflict with him? McCluskey and Sollozzo - tried to kill his father. Tessio - betrayed the family. Carlo - set up his brother. Barzini, Tattaglia - conspired to kill Vito and him. Cuneo and Stracci - hmmmm? guilty by association with Barzini and Tattaglia?? This one could be a pre-cautionary elimination. Fabrizio - killed his wife; intended to kill him. Fredo - betrayal. Hyman Roth - tried to kill him. Geary's prostitute - to neutralize Geary (not nice). Tom Hagen....maybe a precautionary like Cuneo and Stracci, but ???? He very well could order it. Paranoia was becoming a dominant trait.

Michael would have regarded it as a betrayal--and Tom would have been in mortal danger, and Tom knew it. The tipoff, IMO, is Tom's reply: He says, "Why do you hurt me, Michael-- I've always been loyal to you" [emphasis added]. Notice that he didn't say, "That was a hell of a hurtful thing to say to your brother. Not so long ago, after the Tahoe shooting, you said you loved and admired me as your brother." Tom acknowledged in his reply, that his relationship with Michael was business--and that loyalty, not brotherhood, was both the danger and the issue.

yea tom was a great guy

True, but Tom would have never made that brought up that 'brother' comment anyway. He was already embarrassed that this discussion was taking place right in front of Rocco & Neri. He would never have gotten that personal with Mike with them in the room. But yes, this was strictly a BUSINESS discussion.

Apple

I don't think Tom would have been in mortal danger. However, he certainly would have been put out of Michael's life.

Why? What makes you believe that Michael would have given Tom a pass?

Michael ordered the death of his own blood brother Fredo. Surely Michael would have had no problem having an adopted brother taken out.

Michael became a cold hearted, paranoid, egotistical, control freak, power thirsty bastard at that point. IMO He wouldn't have given it a second thought had Tom told him that he would no longer stand at his side.


Don Cardi

Upon reflection, I'm gonna go with a modified version of MaryCas' theory here.

Except for the incidental death of Geary's playmate, Michael never eliminated anyone who was not either a proven enemy or a potential danger.

Even if Tom had left the family and gone to work solo in Vegas, I don't think Michael would have taken any overt action against him.

I'd agree with what Olivant said above:

I don't think Tom would have been in mortal danger. However, he certainly would have been put out of Michael's life.

With all that Tom knew, and all that Tom planned with Michael, for Michael, and on behalf of Michael, I would consider Tom to be a "potential" danger to Michael. Therfore I feel that Michael would have had Tom eliminated.


Don Cardi

For someone to be a danger to Michael in terms of what they could've told law enforcement authorities, for example, I don't think some one who knows a handful of intimate details about Michael's activities is any les dangerous than someone who know almost everything, as Tom did.

I mean, it wasn't as if Tom was gonna go off and start his own family and become a rival of Michael's.

The only potential danger Tom presented was in what he "knew".

Suppose Tom had been arrested? Would Michael have had him killed then, because he feared that Tom would cooperate with law enforcement?

And take Kay, for example: While she obviously didn't know nearly as much as Tom did, she certainly had to have known plenty that could've helped law enforcement, and Michael didn't have her killed.

The roles of Stracchi and Cuneo in the Five Families War against the Corleones was never made perfectly clear, but assuming that they were on the enemy side as well, who did Michael ever kill because they presented merely a potential danger?

I always thought Michael said those things to keep control of Tom and keep him "in line." It was to remind Tom that if he betrayed Michael, it would be found out and Tom would be in big trouble. just my 2 cents for what its worth! Kind of like when Mike "pretended" to be mad at Pentangelli right after the "hit" on Michaels home. It was to control Pentangelli into getting him to do what Michael wanted.

Anyway, if Tom had said, "yes I'm moving to Vegas" (which he never would have because he was loyal to Michael) then Tom would have been put out for sure.