As I am watching Godfather Part II on amc, this thought occured to me. Hyman Roth received some payments from for the other partners he has investing in the casinos. As we all know the deal fails when the revolution happens and it''s a great loss. In Godfather III at the meeting in Atlantic City, the Dons thank Michael for selling the casinos and making a fortune for them all. I just think it's interesting how Michael makes his partners rich while Roth caused his partners to lose money. Maybe this is the cause for why no one sought revenge on Michael when he ordered the hit on Roth. Maybe I eat too much and it's affecting my thinking.

Like Johnny Ola said, "Hyman Roth always made money for his friends."

As for the other investors in the Cuban casino deal, I really don't think they can or would have blamed Roth for that. Although an argument could be made that Roth let his greed get the better of him by turning a blind eye to the Castro threat. Michael, by contrast, saw the threat right away and knew to get out while he could.

As for Michael's casino deal I always thought those were supposed to be the ones in Vegas.

Correct, Iceman. The sale of the casinos in III refers to Michael's legitimate holdings in Vegas.

I knew the sales of the casinos in Vegas were different. I just found it interesting how Roth was so confident in bringing these investors in. I mean if I was an investor, I would be angry a million dollars is lost because of a revolution after my partner assured me so much it would not be a concern.

We're never told in the movie that the other guys with Roth at his birthday party were investors, although it's not unreasonable to expect that. But:

Roth's speech at his birthday party was designed to create an alibi for him--while at the same time keeping the other guys dependent on him. So, if Roth's plan had worked, and Michael had been assassinated after the Presidential New Year's Eve party, Roth could have told the authorities (and any Corleone members looking for revenge): "What, me arrange for Michael's death? Why, I loved him like a son. I was gonna turn everything over to him. Just ask any of those thugs who were at my birthday party." And, by designating some of his holdings to others, like the Lakeville Road Boys and Eddie Levine of Newport, Roth was making sure that no one would get ideas about whacking him after he took care of Michael. He would have shown them that he was still in charge--and with all-powerful/all-greedy Michael out of the way, they'd be sure to get a piece of his action.

I took it that the other attendees at Roth's birthday party included investors. After Michael made his observation that the rebels could win,Roth made a point of pulling him aside and telling him that he preferred to talk about it when they were alone. He didn't want them scared off.
In addition to possibly establishing an alibi in the event of Mike's murder in Cuba,Roth also wanted to demonstrate stability and continuity in his business holdings.
This was basically the underworld equivalent of a corporate shareholders meeting.The CEO gives his recap to date,and then lays out the prospects for the future,including the plans for dealing with any potential negative situations.

Clearly they were investors and potential witnesses to Roth's professed largess toward Michael. The details about leaving a small piece for various mobsters was for Roth to show he was thinking two steps ahead of everyone else, and probably paving the way for them to come in after Michael was assassinated. Obviously Fidel had other plans that got in the way.

In "real life" the Teamsters were a big investor in the Havana casinos, no doubt with the help of Meyer Lansky.

Isn't there a line in the Roth birthday scene where he mentions someone putting up some cash with the Teamsters "on a dollar for dollar basis"?

Yes.

In real-life, Meyer Lansky thought that he could continue doing business with Castro, even secretely financing his rebellion. It sounds plausible to me that Roth was playing the same double game.



The movie strongly implies that the "Lakeville Road Group" were one of his other investors.

In addition, I have a couple of questions that can also be added here.

Is it realistic that Michael could have sold his casinos for so much cash that he was able to give the other mob bosses individually tens of millions for their shares? And how much money would he and his partners have made from his hotels and casinos before he sold them?

I believe the Chicago Outfit only received a couple of millions from their Las Vegas casinos each year, but maybe I'm misinformed..

"Lakeville Road Boys" = Mayfield Road Gang (Moe Dalitz and Sam Tucker).

Eddie Levine of Newport" = Eddie Levinson of Lexington, KY.

Again: The script never says they were "investors," but it is logical to assume they were.

For all his smart, Lansky screwed up big-time in Havana. US Congress ruled that American investors could own casino interests either in Nevada or Havana, but not both. Lansky and Santos Trafficante chose Havana. Lansky put up $5 million of his own and investors' money, plus $6 million from Batista, to build the Havana Riviera. When it opened in March 1958, it was Havana's biggest and plushest casino/hotel. Ten months later it belonged to Castro.

Sonny, have you ever been to Cuba?

I know, but I wrote that it is implied by Roth's statement, and I stand by it. We do not necessarily need a confirmation in the film to know that Roth had other investors. I imagine Roth would only hand over control of his hotels to his business partners.



No, but I would like to go there sometime. I suppose you have?

They are starting up two flights a week from Tampa to Havana roundtrip in a couple of months. You can go on the flimsiest of excuses...any local art museum or music company cas write a letter saying you are going to study "art" or music" or pursuing some academic issue, and you can go. I want to get there before Casro dies and alll the US money starts pouring in to built condos, McDonalds and Pizza Huts.

The huge losses Lansky and Trafficante incurred in Cuba was the impetus for the mob/CIA alliance to get rid of Castro in the Bay of Pigs operatiion, and to conspiracy theory people the origins of the plot to kill JFK.

I also want to see Cuba as it is now (and has been for decades), instead of an Americanized Cuba.

The irony is that, despite the US ban on citizens traveling to Cuba, any American can fly there from, say, Canada, Mexico or Jamaica. The Cubans oblige by not stamping Americans' passports on entry and exit, leaving no official record to their visits. Only restriction is that Americans have to pay cash--no US credit card accounts accepted. Another irony: Notwithstanding 54+ years of Communist rule, the US dollar buys far more than its official equivalent of Cuban pesos; Cuban citizens are barred from the fanciest tourist hotels, and prostitution is on the rise again. Lansky and Trafficante must be laughing from the Great Beyond.