Ewoks are cute rubbish, but still rubbish

D'aw, a space puppy equivalent!

Ewoks are fuzzy little divisive furballs. The entire Star Wars fandom is basically split into two camps: those who hate them, and those who LUUUV the cute lil' bipedal Tribbles. One side will never convince the other. 

It is a state of Civil War. And sometimes not so civil.

When anyone says the ewoks defeating the Empire is implausible, the standard response now seems to be: ever heard of Vietnam?

Yes, 100%, George Lucas was consciously drawing inspiration from the conflict in Vietnam when he created Star Wars: he saw the Evil Empire as the US of A and Richard Nixon as The Emperor. Originally, he intended the wookies to be in the ewok insurgency role, but since he didn't think he'd get to film the entire story, he threw Chewbacca into the first film, and for Return of the Jedi, cut the wookies in half and made them ewoks (roughly half the letters, too. Cute).

This, however, is irrelevant: as presented in the film, it still isn't plausible, and the Vietnam comparison is only valid on the most abstract level.

First, the ewoks are stone age hunter gatherers (and cannibals, willing to eat any humanoids they capture for extra calories, which suggests they don't have the best diet) who live in small villages. Cannibalism is usually only done when alternative food sources are scarce. 

They aren't nomadic, as their village is large and built off the ground, presumably to avoid predators, which suggests they are not at the apex of the food chain (or they war with nearby ewok tribes, in which case they are fractured). 

Vietnam left the stone age thousands of years ago. It was a nation aspiring to be a state, with a vibrant and flourishing civilization, occupied by France (and Japan) when the liberation war started. It was agrarian, with a population of roughly 60 million (in the 1960s), with large cities and developed infrastructure. While the Viet Cong may have been willing to fight with bamboo spears, they were far, far more likely to be armed with Kalishnikov automatic rifles, which were roughly equivalent to the M16s used by the American GIs (and in some ways superior, Kalishnikov's being more rugged and easier to maintain in the jungle).

Second, Vietnam was funneled billions worth of weapons, ammunition, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, and jets (complete with Russian pilots) by the USSR and China. 

There is no question the US enjoyed a military edge, but it was hardly rifleman vs. spearman. 

Third, the ewoks are short with stubby limbs. They move slowly and awkwardly. In Return of the Jedi, they can barely manage a trot, much less run. They are not capable of throwing spears, or swinging weapons, with the force or range that a human sized equivalent could. They're cute and cuddly, sure, but not particularly capable. The latter feeds into the former: they read as children, or puppies. Space puppies!!! Their obvious helplessness is part of their endearing appeal and cuteness. 

Fourth, there is no compelling reason for nearby tribes to join this one village in its fight against The Empire. The tribe is likely at war with them to begin with (hence their tree fort). Otherwise, what threat does The Empire even pose? They are only there to protect the shield generator. 

A fierce human 6 year old with equally fierce looking ewok warriors

Fifth, the Emperor claims an entire legion of his 'best troops' are on the surface of Endor. This suggests at least divisional in size, so between 5,000 (Roman legion) and 15,000 troops (US division). How is a hunter gatherer village of 150-300 ewoks (300 being the typical cap on hunter-gatherer community size) taking on such a force? How are they even gathering up enough villages to match it in size, and transporting all those troops into one area to fight? Where is all the food coming from? Are they just planning to eat the Imperials? 

 

Sixth, the Vietnamese never won a full on assault against a large, well supplied American division-sized force. Yes, they laid siege to isolated outposts very successfully, employing copious amounts of artillery, but that's not the same thing as attacking a tank armed with a stick, while toddling about like a four year old. And while the Tet Offensive was a tremendous political success while simultaneously being a costly military failure, the only option open to the ewoks was purely military in scope. 

If I absolutely had to pick a military comparison, I'd pick The Battle of Isandlwhana over any comparison to Vietnam. The Zulu defeated a modern British army (equipped with rifles, rockets, cannon, and even a couple gatling guns, if memory serves), using only asegis and guts. It was one of the worst military defeats in British military history. 

But the Zulu were not hunter-gatherers: they were farmers, hence they were able to assemble a large fighting force (thanks to surplus food production provided by agriculture). They were tall and capable of running all day, whereas ewoks weeble wobble and fall down. As originally conceived, with wookies, yes, it'd feel much, much more plausible (though it doesn't solve the population density issue). Throw in scary rancor-like trained monsters, the wookies (or even the ewoks) kept as 'pets', and it's at least believable in the moment.

Battle of Isandlwana: now imagine the Zulu were waddling, 3 feet tall chubby toddlers covered in thick fur yelling their battle cry, "Yub yub"!

Are the ewoks a stand in for those oppressed by Colonialism? Did George Lucas intend for the wookiee/ewoks to represent the Vietnamese? Yes and yes. Do they, as presented in the actual film, match the capabilities and effectiveness of the Vietnamese? Not in the least.

It should also be noted that the narrative of Evil Imperialist USA and Good Noble Freedom Fighter Vietnam is an oversimplification of what happened in South East Asia, just as the counter narrative is. Yes, the US body count obsession contributed to a lethal mind set, there were massacres like Mai Lai, and the carpet bombing of the Ho Chi Min trail, and factories in North Vietnam (in operations like Linebacker, which killed large numbers of civilians... perhaps inspiring the Death Star? Or is that more sperm and egg?). At the same time, the communists were arguably even more oppressive and brutal than their corrupt South Vietnam counterparts, and racked up quite a body count of villagers who opposed their policies. We know far more of American failings, thanks to a free press (particularly Seymour Hersch), than we do of what went on behind the scenes in North Vietnam. 

Lucas did what he could to make the ewoks look formidable with traps, and the scenes depicting walkers being taken down by rolling logs and such were a lot of fun, so entertaining I didn't care about feasibility. But that didn't work for the ewoks themselves. It felt like Lil Leia running from bounty-hunters: an indulgent parent play fighting with their kid. 

Which ties in nicely to George Lucas' emphatic view that Star Wars is for children. For him, this sort of staging is a feature, not a flaw. 

I would argue that the first two films were all-ages, general audience, and that it was with Return of the Jedi he swerved heavily towards children (okay, also The Christmas Special. And the ewok films. And, and, and...). Phantom Menace also felt like a kids flick. With the conflict built around trade negotiations. Go figure. 

So...Star Wars is for children. I get it. Arguing it still makes sense as cogent political commentary, plausibly presented, however, doesn't fly (unless we are talking about Andor, which is fabulous and quite definitely not focused on toddlers). On an abstract level, sure, I can take away the underlying point.

So yes: I have heard of the Vietnam War. The ewok victory is still not plausible, on a practical level, as presented in the film.  It works as kids' logic, but not on an adult level. If you classify it specifically as a children's film, the criticism goes away, as it's not relevant. We don't really expect adult logic to constrain kids films. 

That said, I thought the ewok victory was implausible as a kid, too. 

I guess it depends on the kid, and what age range you're looking at (6-8 vs. 9-10 vs 11-12... they can all be very different in terms of what they'll accept narratively).