Most of us here at one time or another have agreed that Vito's pledge at the Commission meeting that he would not be the first to "break the peace" was not binding on Michael. I have two questions:

1. Did Barzini "break the peace" first by horning in on Tessio's territory (as he complained in the fishtank scene)?

2. Would Michael have mounted the Great Massacre of 1955 if Vito were still alive?

Your thoughts on both?

1. It's been my view that there never was any real peace. Vito was merely trying to get Michael back home without Barzini and company taking a shot at him, and said what he needed to say to make that happen. He wanted everyone to know that if Michael didn't make it back safely, he would cast blame on 'some of them'. For the Dons, that's a potential declaration of war. From Michael's point of view, any peace that could've been was broken when Barzini caused the death of Apollonia. I have another theory about that situation which I'll elaborate on in a separate thread.

2. In the novel, Michael and Vito make the master plan, but Michael would be the one to carry it out and 'would not allow Vito to even veto it. If he tried, Michael would go his own way.' In that way, Vito would bear no responsibility for it in his own mind. The other new Dons might have seen things differently and would think Vito as complicit in the act for breaking the peace that he promised. They would've seen Vito's inaction against Michael as breaking his word to their families. By waiting until after Vito's passing, Michael ensured that his father could be held blameless for his son's actions.

TB, yes, Barzini broke the peace first.

The peace was not binding on Michael. The massacre was an artful cinematic manipulation by Puzo and FFC that would not have been necessary if Vito lived. However, with Vito counseling him, Michael could have engineered some revenge while using the results to expand Corleone hegemony.

I'd have to delve a bit into the dialogue to be sure, but I don't think that it was part of the plan to wait until Vito was dead. It was, in fact, an untimely death for execution of the plan, as Vito had not yet finished fully wiring Michael into his political network.

The moment Michael was invited by Tessio to a meeting with Barzini it was kill or be killed and he had to act first. Without Tessio on his side Michael would lose half his manpower and he would've never won another war with the other families. However, as long as Vito was alive I don't think Barzini would've made a move on Michael, nor do I think Tessio would've betrayed them.

I think Barzini chipping away territories from the Corleones could be considered breaking the peace from their point of view, but technically he would only break the peace if he would've gone over to violence.

There never really was "peace," because Barzini never stopped coming after the Corleone family, and the fishtank scene is good evidence of that.

Michael would have gone through with the Great Massacre if Vito had lived. The two of them were planning it when they sent Tom Hagen to Vegas .."You're not a wartime consigliere....things could get rough with the move we're trying."

Good answers, all! My view:

1. Barzini didn't "break the peace." The agreement the Dons made with Vito was that the war would end, no attempts would be made on Michael's life in his return from Sicily, and Vito would provide police/political protection for the drugs trade in the East. Period. Barzini horning in on Tessio's territory wasn't part of that agreement. Though they could have reacted to Barzini's incursions (either with force or diplomacy), Vito and Michael didn't because they were playing weak-and-meek.

2. The novel clearly states that Michael was planning to go ahead with The Great Massacre while Vito was alive--even telling Vito that he must have no part in it, and that Michael would leave the family and go his own way if Vito tried to interfere. Perhaps he meant by that to protect Vito's personal integrity--i.e., Vito didn't break the peace, Michael did, not that it would matter to anyone but Vito. Luckily we were spared this ridiculous "moral" distinction by circumstance: Vito died and Barzini, with Tessio, planned to whack Michael. So, it was kill or be killed.

I think "the peace" had to include such things as respecting one another's territories and not shooting any more police captains. In the book, at least, Vito had forged a nationwide "agreement to enforce peace in the underworld," that particularly included territorial integrity. I can't imagine that the peace conference was intended to rescind that.

TB, your interpretation is reasonable. However, I tend to side with Pete about Barzini's breaking the peace. As Pete intimates, the peace subsumed a whole lot of underworld activity. That interpretation is supported by, in the novel, the Dons' agreement that certain cities were to be open to any families operations. If any Don wanted to be technical about it, I suppose they coul dmake an argument that encroachments on other families territory wasn't an explicit part of the peace.

I looked up a relevant passage in the novel yesterday. When Tessio is arguing about Barzini's incursions, and wants to recruit more men, Vito replied: "I gave my word, and I can't break it," or something to that effect. Tess replies that Barzini's actions are "provocation enough," presumably to constitute "breaking the peace."

Basically correct TB. Tessio is correct also. But Vito's words are only meant to buy Michael sufficient time to implement his plan without any interference from Corleone subordinates. As such, Vito's words are intended to placate Tessio.

lampone's secret regime
So Barzini "horning in on Tessio's territory" was not considered as Barzini breaking the peace?

"Would Michael [still] have mounted the Great Massacre of 1955" even if Barzini didn't attempt to have Michael killed thus not breaking his peace pledge

If Michael was killed on “his return from Sicily” what could / would Vito have done?

If Sonny's 100 button men on the street 24/7 couldn't locate Sollozzo....Any vengeance doesn't seem possible from the Corleones' no Rocco's secret regime, weak and crumbling state

Barzini is a dead man They already preparing the Great Massacre long before Michael was invited by Tessio to a meeting with Barzini

Vito is a dead man If Michael was killed on “his return from Sicily” what could Vito have done? Broken and Hunted

If Michael was killed on “his return from Sicily” Corleones annihilated


Don't know Turnbull aside to the peace pact for the drugs, Philip Tattaglia and Vito Corleone agreed to forgo any individual vendetta which I reckon would be binding on their respective Families too

If another Corleone or another Tattaglia attempt vengeance, without any provocation, I reckon it would be breaking that agreement and their word

I reckon "I is on behalf of the Family otherwise ridiculous "moral" distinction by circumstance:

It seems to me -

• Michael's safety on his return from Sicily was brought up by Vito only after the above peace agreement was reached

Whilst Vito's veiled threat, should anything happen to Michael “And that, I do not forgive” in reality there was little to nothing that Vito could have done, in the Corleones' dilapidated state

• Philip Tattaglia and Vito Corleone [agreeing] to forgo any individual vendetta” sure thing “would be binding on their respective Families too”

However any other action eg: "horning in on” other Dons' territories whilst not the act of a friend! is outside this agreement

Just because Barzini said that doesn't mean an agreement was reached. Vito makes Michael's safety a condition of the peace agreement.



The Corleones weren't really dilapidated. Maybe not at peak strength but, remember, they played up their perceived weakness to entrap the other Families. Tattaglia certainly seems to think Vito has the power to exact vengeance.

Plus, Vito clearly still had the political/police contacts to blow up the other Families' drug rackets and probably put most of their key people in jail.

Don't know Woltz after Barzini said there will be peace with Vito giving protection, there was no more drugs talk like the traffic in drugs was settled

Here's the thing when Vito was shot they were at peak strength but couldn't afford a stalemate, couldn't sustain their overheads if no business was coming in, couldn't locate Sollozzo and Sonny was killed They were the most affected

I can't see Vito's political/police contacts getting involved in the other Families' drug rackets mainly because of the big kickbacks these corrupt contacts could be getting from it You see -- all these people are business men, their loyalty is based on money

Also at the time of the peace meeting with all the other families against the weakened Corleones and no secret regime, Vito in his position can't afford a Gangland war

No doubt their perceived weakness lulled the other Families to entrap them but only way down the track and because Michael was alive

Vito a man of his word, swore on the souls of his grandchildren that he will not be the one to break the peace that they made
1. Sonny's children unseen
2. Michael's children Mary killed
3. Connie's children Victor petty thief

Well, Vincent did OK - became the family boss.

My misunderstanding, Vito's selfish reasons for agreeing to give protection for the drugs Trade “Michael's safety” which was “a condition of the peace agreement”

You are right Woltz dilapidated was inaccurate and the wrong choice of words....I'd like to change! it to “weakened” please
Down but not out - It's a long way to the top! if you wanna rock 'n' roll [Ref: AC/DC Australian Rock band] - in crime business

Who there didn't know that it was Michael all along

Yes, "weakened" is probably more accurate. Although they weren't quite as weak as they let on.

BTW, love the AC/DC reference. I have much respect for the Aussie music scene. Love some of the newer bands like Cable Ties and Amyl and the Sniffers. And, most of all, Courtney Barnett.

Forgive me Godfather....

At the Peace meeting

AC/DC Long way to the Top
I find this, in my view - feel good - video clip filmed over 46 years ago 23 February 1976 fascinating that 5 band members and 3 bagpipers in their full ceremonial regalia [total 8] with their equipment, Drum set etc. performing - jumping, dancing and blasting away - on a very slow moving [cameramen on foot filming] compact, open [no safety rails] flat-bed truck, driving down a Main Street in Melbourne City, Australia on a Monday with such minimal fuss

Nowadays, it would be even more of an impossibility than Kay getting the children or Michael's “legitimacy” to stage something like this – Red tape, Bureaucracy, Occupational, Health and Safety [OH&S] Security, Road rage....what have you

Barzini was right “Times have changed” Those were the days!

I'd check out the newer bands you mentioned You are better informed than me!