The significance behind Lucky Luciano

[Little_Al1991]

There was something about Luciano allegedly wanting to remove the made man ceremony but it was either Genovese or Lansky which convinced him to keep it
Luciano is also generally portrayed as someone who didn’t care much about the traditions of that life.
Thank you for providing such great information.
Words such as honour in that life can be quite strange to hear because honour is attributed to doing the morally right thing but the rackets in that life are all considered to be morally wrong such as gambling

[InCamelot]

Self-promotion but the first Mob Archeologists episode was a conversation about this if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5DUXAWHvaE

Great podcast, I enjoyed it but felt that it wandered away from Luciano far to many times
I do consider that podcast to be probably the best mob content out there which is not from a former member

Agreed on all counts here. It was the first podcast though, so I can see how some of that excitement or just plethora of info in their heads had to be harnessed.

[Antiliar]

You might like this: http://informer-journal.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1

[Angelo Santino]

You might like this: http://informer-journal.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1

This is required reading for anyone wanting to delve into this Luciano business. Like with Gotti, Capone and others, there's Luciano the Man and Luciano the Legend, the latter is permeated in Martin Gosch's Last Testament of Lucky Luciano, his so-called autobiography that he co-wrote with the author. The narrative in this book really catapulted the Luciano story we all know- first Italian to talk to a Jew, the 4 amigos- Luciano, Lanksy, Costello and Siegel against the world, Luciano the national syndicate founder... Rick goes through the book in painstaking detail and wipes it all away.

This book influenced countless works (including Mobsters with Christian Slater- good film no really) and set the narrative that Luciano formed the LCN in 1931, I don't think this narrative will ever fully go away. Same with Capone wiping out the Sicilians and setting up his Outfit.

One thing people need to consider are the lack of sources that can be verified. For instance, this book details Luciano having his face cut by Maranzano, when he's in the hospital Lansky says: "You were lucky- hey that's you! Lucky!" Jump out of that book and look at the newspapers on the week of his attack one article was titled "Lucky not so Lucky," meaning his moniker predates the attack. I once read an article in the early 2000's where an online author argued that he could not see Costello undergoing a ceremony. Since he was a boss we know he underwent one- either verbal or full, but more importantly, the author doesn't know Costello personally, he knows what has been written about him.

People do this today, I think back to the Ligambi era where he was made out to be the "Amazing Don" who made-money-not-headlines etc etc etc. After years of him being this alleged tactician with guys like Staino, it came out that the Acting Under was Marty Angelina and people online were in a state of disbelief. "Upset" even. Even Anastasia himself said "Some people think he (Staino) is the real underboss." No one else but him ever stated that Staino was under. (Imagine if some current journalists did this?). I remember someone saying "I think I lost confidence in Joe," to which I recall responding: "I'm sure 'Joe' is just f-kingheart broken that you don't have confidence in him." What I'm getting at is, we don't know these people, we know what's been written and narrated on these men. And we can see the fallacy in this today, its even worse for these early figures. Most books are based on books that were based on incorrect books.

[Sullycantwell]

You might like this: http://informer-journal.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1

This is required reading for anyone wanting to delve into this Luciano business. Like with Gotti, Capone and others, there's Luciano the Man and Luciano the Legend, the latter is permeated in Martin Gosch's Last Testament of Lucky Luciano, his so-called autobiography that he co-wrote with the author. The narrative in this book really catapulted the Luciano story we all know- first Italian to talk to a Jew, the 4 amigos- Luciano, Lanksy, Costello and Siegel against the world, Luciano the national syndicate founder... Rick goes through the book in painstaking detail and wipes it all away.

This book influenced countless works (including Mobsters with Christian Slater- good film no really) and set the narrative that Luciano formed the LCN in 1931, I don't think this narrative will ever fully go away. Same with Capone wiping out the Sicilians and setting up his Outfit.

One thing people need to consider are the lack of sources that can be verified. For instance, this book details Luciano having his face cut by Maranzano, when he's in the hospital Lansky says: "You were lucky- hey that's you! Lucky!" Jump out of that book and look at the newspapers on the week of his attack one article was titled "Lucky not so Lucky," meaning his moniker predates the attack. I once read an article in the early 2000's where an online author argued that he could not see Costello undergoing a ceremony. Since he was a boss we know he underwent one- either verbal or full, but more importantly, the author doesn't know Costello personally, he knows what has been written about him.

People do this today, I think back to the Ligambi era where he was made out to be the "Amazing Don" who made-money-not-headlines etc etc etc. After years of him being this alleged tactician with guys like Staino, it came out that the Acting Under was Marty Angelina and people online were in a state of disbelief. "Upset" even. Even Anastasia himself said "Some people think he (Staino) is the real underboss." No one else but him ever stated that Staino was under. (Imagine if some current journalists did this?). I remember someone saying "I think I lost confidence in Joe," to which I recall responding: "I'm sure 'Joe' is just f-kingheart broken that you don't have confidence in him." What I'm getting at is, we don't know these people, we know what's been written and narrated on these men. And we can see the fallacy in this today, its even worse for these early figures. Most books are based on books that were based on incorrect books.

On the topic of Luciano myths, what happened at the Atlantic City meeting in 1929? was Luciano there? was a "national crime syndicate" established? if not, what was it for or do we even know?

[Angelo Santino]

No idea. I'd have to look up the AC 29 meeting on wikipedia to freshen up. As far as I can tell it involved plenty of non-Italians so it was likely racket-based alliance related. If making connections and trying to dominate certain industries with non-members constitutes an informal "national crime syndicate" then yes. If it's arguing that this NCS is some "new organization" then no.

[Sullycantwell]

No idea. I'd have to look up the AC 29 meeting on wikipedia to freshen up. As far as I can tell it involved plenty of non-Italians so it was likely racket-based alliance related. If making connections and trying to dominate certain industries with non-members constitutes an informal "national crime syndicate" then yes. If it's arguing that this NCS is some "new organization" then no.

yeah this was my understanding as well. using your term, it clearly seems operational and people make it seem like Luciano created a new thing. not even sure if it's confirmed he was there though. we know Capone and Nucky Johnson were there.

[Angelo Santino]

No idea. I'd have to look up the AC 29 meeting on wikipedia to freshen up. As far as I can tell it involved plenty of non-Italians so it was likely racket-based alliance related. If making connections and trying to dominate certain industries with non-members constitutes an informal "national crime syndicate" then yes. If it's arguing that this NCS is some "new organization" then no.

yeah this was my understanding as well. using your term, it clearly seems operational and people make it seem like Luciano created a new thing. not even sure if it's confirmed he was there though. we know Capone and Nucky Johnson were there.

Which makes it very significant. It falls outside of organizational but it's not diminished. Men who attended this were captains of "industry" and these mafia member (and by extension the mafia) alliances with Jewish and other ethnic racketeers/gangsters, catapulted them to greater heights. The 1920's was America's most lawless decade. Prohibition made many in the underworld element into untouchable millionaires.

[B.]

Luciano's nickname obviously comes from his name Lucania and Valachi referred to him as "Charlie Lucky" which fits that. Bill Bonanno implied Rusty Rastelli got his nickname from some kind of "signature" gun with a rust spot in one of his books when it clearly comes from the name Rastelli. Same thing with Luciano. It's like Joe Mouse in Philly -- his name comes from Joe Mass, i.e. Massimino.

[Hired_Goonz]

Where I'm really interested in separating the fact from the fiction is in his wartime cooperation with the government and his role in the heroin traffic afterwards. Is the mainstream account of Luciano getting his sentence commuted for getting the mob to keep the docks free from sabotage really the whole story? One thing in Al D'Arco's book that I found interesting was that Davey Petillo was calling Luciano a rat for cooperating with the G. Made me realize that's exactly what he did and yet that was the first I had ever read of someone referring to him that way. Does anyone know if Luciano was really a big player in the postwar heroin trade as he is sometimes portrayed?

[Don_Peppino]

https://youtu.be/9a38aw50DjE

A podcast talking about Lucky Luciano's prostitution case with author Eileen Poulsen

[Don Mosseria]

No idea. I'd have to look up the AC 29 meeting on wikipedia to freshen up. As far as I can tell it involved plenty of non-Italians so it was likely racket-based alliance related. If making connections and trying to dominate certain industries with non-members constitutes an informal "national crime syndicate" then yes. If it's arguing that this NCS is some "new organization" then no.

yeah this was my understanding as well. using your term, it clearly seems operational and people make it seem like Luciano created a new thing. not even sure if it's confirmed he was there though. we know Capone and Nucky Johnson were there.

Yeah, there is a whole bunch of info floating around out there about how a formal National Crime Syndicate was created, which, by some telling, began being organised at the 1929 AC Conference, and was fully formed some time in 1931. This allegedly included a formal “National Board of Directors of Organized Crime”. Carl Sifakis goes into great detail on this in his Encyclopaedia of Organised Crime (forgive my British spellings). I think J Robert Nash talks about it too. Sifakis tells you exactly who was apparently on this board of directors, and it included a mixture of mostly Italian and Jewish gangsters. He has Luciano as the Chairman of the Board, the overall big shot. But then he has Costello and Joe Adonis on it (where I believe Adonis was never administration level in Cosa Nostra). Then he has Lansky, plus Jake Guzik from Chicago, Longy Zwillman, I think Dutch Shultz, plus I think Purple Gang representatives from Detroit, etc. Torrio is involved, and Capone at the beginning too. I think he might list a couple of Irish members also. He tells you that Guzik would travel into NY once per month or something to attend meetings. He says that there were two official boards of directors created in 1931 - the Italian Commission, and the National Syndicate Board of Directors. And the Syndicate is effectively the more important one. There is a Wikipedia page which has info about this too, and you see it in various places in online articles and whatever. I remember a reference to bootleggers in back woods Virginia getting a “Syndicate lawyer” in the 2012 move Lawless. Sifakis gives no referenced sources in his encyclopaedia at all, so he gives no information about how he learned about this apparent formal national body.

From what I can tell, to use a British expression, it is all total bollocks. You guys are far more knowledgeable researchers than me, but I have never seen any actual proper source back to anyone who was involved about any of this. It seems to me that the idea goes back to the way people were thinking about what might be going on back at the time of the Kefauver hearings in the early 50s. They could kind of tell some sort of organised thing was going on, but they didn’t know what it was. They used the term “Syndicate” a lot, but didn’t know anything about what the actual structure might be, but it looked multi-ethnic, largely Jewish and Italian, from the outside. This is pure speculation on my part, but it kind of looks like these early ideas about a possible multi-ethnic National Crime Syndicate got glommed onto information that came out after Apalachin and Valachi about the Italian organisation that actually existed, and fused together to create this legend of the National Board of Directors etc. I haven’t read The Last Testament of Lucky Luciano, but based on a word search of a digital copy, this formal National Crime Syndicate is not referenced in there at all. But, it seems like ideas about Luciano as this revolutionary business CEO type of guy got fed into the myth. Perhaps, as people wrote speculative articles, other people wrote articles quoting those articles, and then books, until it became part of the lore? But I think the reality is, it never existed. The Cosa Nostra Commission was the only such centralised formal body that ever existed (unless the Camorra or some other group had one that I don’t know about?). Jewish and other gangsters would be involved by way of association with Italians, but never participated directly.

That is my take on the supposed National Crime Syndicate anyway, and it seems to fit with what others have said here, but if anyone thinks I am getting anything wrong, please let me know. Cheers

[Don Mosseria]

A related question. I came to this thread because I am looking for info on the reported Chicago mafia conference held after the assassination of Maranzano where the Commission was apparently formed in late 1931. The Informer Journal article on Nick Gentile states, at p.44:

“Another Mafia conference was held at Chicago following Maranzano’s assassination. Scalise provided testimony regarding Maranzano’s violent plans and argued for the necessity of Lucania’s first strike. The Castellammarese Mafiosi accepted the explanation. The boss of bosses position was discarded (it is unlikely that anyone wanted the position) and a representative Commission was installed to resolve inter-family disputes.”

I have seen far less info on this second 1931 Chicago conference than the first one where Maranzano was anointed, which both the Gentile Informer article and Bonanno’s book go into a lot more detail on. I think I have read in other places that Luciano was the lead guy at this creation of the Commission at this conference, but that my be myth, as you guys seem to suggest in some comments above. Can anyone link to any info on this conference?

Thank you all!

[Antiliar]

A related question. I came to this thread because I am looking for info on the reported Chicago mafia conference held after the assassination of Maranzano where the Commission was apparently formed in late 1931. The Informer Journal article on Nick Gentile states, at p.44:

“Another Mafia conference was held at Chicago following Maranzano’s assassination. Scalise provided testimony regarding Maranzano’s violent plans and argued for the necessity of Lucania’s first strike. The Castellammarese Mafiosi accepted the explanation. The boss of bosses position was discarded (it is unlikely that anyone wanted the position) and a representative Commission was installed to resolve inter-family disputes.”

I have seen far less info on this second 1931 Chicago conference than the first one where Maranzano was anointed, which both the Gentile Informer article and Bonanno’s book go into a lot more detail on. I think I have read in other places that Luciano was the lead guy at this creation of the Commission at this conference, but that my be myth, as you guys seem to suggest in some comments above. Can anyone link to any info on this conference?

Thank you all!

Joe Valachi wrote about Vito Genovese asking him to go to Chicago to explain Maranzano, but he declined and someone else went instead. This is in his The Real Deal autobiography that you can find on Tom Hunt's site.

As for the National Crime Syndicate, I believe that idea came out of Thomas Dewey's investigation into Murder Inc. around 1940. Some journalist probably came up with the term, possibly in the book about Murder Inc. (itself probably a media creation) by Sid Feder and Burton Turkus.

[Don Mosseria]

Joe Valachi wrote about Vito Genovese asking him to go to Chicago to explain Maranzano, but he declined and someone else went instead. This is in his The Real Deal autobiography that you can find on Tom Hunt's site.

As for the National Crime Syndicate, I believe that idea came out of Thomas Dewey's investigation into Murder Inc. around 1940. Some journalist probably came up with the term, possibly in the book about Murder Inc. (itself probably a media creation) by Sid Feder and Burton Turkus.

Thanks very much Antiliar. I will check out Valachi’s The Real Deal autobiography for sure. I guess I should check the Valachi Papers too. Do you know if this Commission forming Chicago conference is referenced at all in the Luciano edition of Informer Journal that you linked above? Or is it not in there?

Re. the National Crime Syndicate, Dewey, interesting. So it goes back a ways before Kefauver. Do you know if Dewey believed it was nationwide then, rather than just city of state wide? Now you mention it, I did do a word search on a pdf of what, iirc, was Burton Turkus’s book for the term Syndicate. Iirc, there was a reference to The Syndicate in there, I think in a quote from Abe “Kid Twist” Reles. But not to the term National Crime Syndicate. Someone in a YouTube comment section quoted it to me as evidence of the existence of a multi-ethnic National Crime Syndicate, but when I checked it, it was just Reles saying that a certain hit was “sanctioned by the Syndicate”, or something like that. So that could really refer to any organisation, including the Cosa Nostra Commission, and not necessarily the kind of multi-ethnic board of directors expounded by Sifakis. And I think that was the sole use of the term in that book. I would have to check again to be sure though.