Source analysis
Source 4A
From my knowledge the source is
referring to
The cartoon is addressing the immediate
post-World War I period, specifically the
creation of the League of Nations as part of
the peace process spearheaded by US
President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a
key advocate for the League, believing it
would preserve peace and prevent future
wars. However, the League’s ambitious
goals faced criticism, especially from those
who saw it as too idealistic and disconnected
from the realpolitik of international affairs.
Analyse the source – what it’s trying to
say
Wilson is offering an “olive branch” — a
universal symbol of peace — but it is
comically oversized and labelled “League of Nations,” suggesting it is far too heavy or ambitious to be
practical. The dove (symbolising peace) looks wary, as if unsure whether it can accept the gift or even
carry it.
This humorous exchange implies that the League’s aims are noble but unrealistic.
This implies that Wilson’s idea, while well-meaning, is overcomplicated and unrealistic. The cartoonist is
satirising Wilson’s attempt to offer peace to the world through a highly ambitious new organisation —
one that may be too grand or idealistic to function in practice.
Furthermore, there’s a subtle criticism of Wilson’s ego. He stands smiling, almost smug, assuming his
offer will be gratefully accepted, yet the dove — the very symbol of peace — is reluctant. This creates
irony: even peace itself is hesitant about the League, suggesting its flaws are so evident that even its
intended purpose (peacekeeping) is not convinced.
Why I think it was released at the time
The cartoon likely dates from 1919 or early 1920, during or just after the Paris Peace Conference. It
reflects growing public and political scepticism about the League of Nations. While many admired
Wilson’s idealism, others feared the League was too utopian — especially in Europe, where the
devastation of war had left countries wary of vague promises.
In the US, the Senate was debating whether to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and join the League. Many
isolationists rejected it, believing it would entangle the US in foreign conflicts. This cartoon captures that
rising doubt — questioning whether the League, however noble in theory, could actually succeed in the
brutal world of international politics
Source 2:
From my knowledge the source
is referring to
The American debate over joining
the League of Nations after World
War I. Although President
Woodrow Wilson had designed the
League as part of his vision for
lasting peace, many in the U.S.
Senate opposed it — particularly
Republicans who feared it would
drag the country into future
European conflicts. The U.S.
ultimately refused to join the
League, weakening its authority
from the very beginning.
Analyse the source – what it’s trying to say
The cartoon shows a figure on one side of the Atlantic Ocean — Uncle Sam, representing the U.S. — and
another man standing across from him on the European side, possibly symbolising Europe or Wilson
himself. Between them is the “League of Nations Bridge,” which is incomplete and stretches over the
Atlantic.
The bridge is meant to connect America and Europe through the League, but it appears broken or
unfinished. Uncle Sam’s sceptical or hesitant posture shows America’s refusal to cross over and join the
League.
This image mocks the idea that the League could work without U.S. support. It reflects the belief that
Wilson’s dream cannot succeed unless America commits fully — but American opposition is portrayed as
firm and distrustful, seeing the League as a risky European entanglement.
Why I think it was released at the time
This cartoon was released in June 1919, when the U.S. Senate was beginning to debate whether to ratify
the Treaty of Versailles and join the League. The cartoon captures the rising isolationism in America and
the fear that joining the League would limit U.S. independence.
It also criticises the impracticality of building peace if the very country that designed the system (the
U.S.) won’t participate in it.
Source 3:
From my knowledge the
source is referring to
The same issue as Source 6 —
the failure of the United States
to join the League of Nations in
1919. Although Wilson had
promoted the League, political
opposition at home blocked
U.S. entry. This British cartoon
reflects concern that the
League cannot function
properly without America’s
involvement.
Analyse the source – what it’s trying to say
The cartoon shows a bridge labelled “League of Nations Bridge,” with different countries named on its
stones — Belgium, France, England, and Italy. However, there is a clear gap in the middle, making the
bridge unusable.
To the side, Uncle Sam is sitting back, leaning casually on a stone labelled “Keystone USA.” This is
crucial — in an arch or bridge, the “keystone” is the central piece that holds everything together. Without
the USA, the bridge cannot stand.
The sign says: “This League of Nations Bridge was designed by the President of the U.S.A.” This adds
another layer of irony — Wilson came up with the idea, but his own country won’t join, leaving a gap in
what should have been a united international effort.
The cartoon portrays the League as fundamentally flawed without U.S. participation and possibly doomed
to collapse.
Why I think it was released at the time
This cartoon came out in December 1919, as it became clear the U.S. would not ratify the Treaty of
Versailles. It reflects British disappointment — they hoped the U.S. would help stabilise the post-war
world, but now saw the League going forward without American support.
The cartoonist is clearly criticising this failure, showing the League as incomplete and unstable.
Source 4:
From my knowledge the source is referring to
The Bulgarian Crisis of 1925, when Greek troops invaded
Bulgaria after a border incident. The League of Nations
intervened and ordered Greece to withdraw and pay
compensation. Greece complied, but many saw this as unfair
— especially when comparing it to the League’s inaction
during the Corfu Crisis (1923), when Italy acted similarly but
was not punished due to Mussolini’s power.
Analyse the source – what it’s trying to say
The cartoon features Greece and Bulgaria dressed as
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, from Alice’s Adventures in
Wonderland — two characters known for childish bickering.
They are both heavily armed, suggesting militarism and
aggression, yet also appear ridiculous, implying their quarrel is
petty or absurd.
Above them, a large dove of peace is shown trying to separate
them — clearly representing the League of Nations. However, the fact that both Greece and Bulgaria look
comically stubborn and ready to fight undermines the League’s authority. The League’s dove, while
well-meaning, appears almost desperate — suggesting that while it is trying to bring peace, it is struggling
to contain irrational national disputes.
The caption includes a satirical version of a Lewis Carroll quote, with the line:
“Whose fono was foreign aid, to love / Who turned this heroic matter to / And made them drop their
quarrel.”
This is ironic — it’s highlighting how the League managed to stop the conflict, but the tone is sarcastic. It
suggests that the League intervened not out of true power or authority, but by acting like a teacher
breaking up a childish fight.
So, the source is mocking both the conflict and the League’s intervention. It shows that the League could
resolve disputes, but only when the aggressors were small and weak — not out of genuine strength, but
because the states involved weren’t powerful enough to resist.
Why I think it was released at the time
This cartoon was published just after the crisis in 1925, as a reaction to public debate about the League’s
double standards. It was likely released to criticise both the countries involved (for their petty quarrelling)
and the League itself (for its inconsistent response compared to Corfu).
It may also reflect British scepticism about the League’s long-term effectiveness. While the League did
stop this war, the cartoonist seems to be questioning: is this really a sign of success, or just luck because
the situation was small and manageable?
Background information on what was happening at the time
• In 1923, Italy invaded Corfu, but the League failed to act decisively because Mussolini refused to
back down and had more power.
• In 1925, Greece invaded Bulgaria, and the League took action by condemning Greece and
ordering compensation.
• Greece obeyed, but many felt this was unfair — the League was seen as punishing small nations
but backing down against stronger ones.
• The cartoon reflects this tension — celebrating the League’s success on the surface, but
highlighting its selective enforcement of peace and justice.
Source 5:
From my knowledge the source is referring to
the League of Nations and its foundational
principles, formed in the aftermath of World
War I. It illustrates how the League wanted to
present itself — as a unifying global force
working to ensure peace and cooperation.
Analysis of the source – what it’s trying to
say:
The source presents an idealised and symbolic
representation of the League. The image of
leaders from “all the nations” working “at the
giant’s feet” suggests a sense of order and
hierarchy, perhaps implying that all these
nations are subordinating their interests to a greater ideal — peace or unity. The “giant” itself could
symbolise peace, justice, or the concept of the League as a powerful force holding up the world’s hopes.
The fact that the League’s members come from “all five continents” is meant to emphasise inclusivity and
global representation, reinforcing the idea that this is not just a European or Western initiative, but a
worldwide effort. This is clearly linked to the League’s principle of collective security — that
international peace can only be secured when all nations cooperate and are represented.
The phrase “strength came from unity” is highly idealistic and speaks directly to one of the League’s most
important goals: that preventing future wars would depend on nations working together rather than
pursuing individual national interests. However, this notion glosses over the real divisions between
member nations, the uneven power dynamics within the League, and the major absences (notably the
USA).
There’s also a propagandistic tone in how the League is being depicted. The image of harmony and unity
ignores the tensions and failures that already existed by the time the League was functioning. This may
suggest the source was meant to inspire confidence or loyalty in the League — perhaps aimed at the
public, schools, or member states.
Why YOU think it was released at the time:
This source may have been released to reinforce faith in the League during a time when its effectiveness
was being questioned. If released in the early 1920s, it would align with efforts to promote the League’s
ideals and gain legitimacy. If later — perhaps in the 1930s — it could be an attempt to restore credibility
after repeated failures, such as in the Manchurian Crisis (1931) or the League’s inability to prevent Italy’s
invasion of Abyssinia (1935).Alternatively, if it’s from an educational or publicity context, the goal might
be to spread the League’s message and embed its idealistic image into the minds of the next generation.
Source 4B
From my knowledge the source is referring to
The early optimism surrounding the creation of the
League of Nations after World War I. The League
was seen by many as a bold new step away from the
destructive diplomacy and militarism of the past.
This cartoon captures the moment just as the
League was being launched in 1919–1920, with
hopeful aims such as disarmament and ending war
— though doubts about its foundations were
already beginning to show.
Analyse the source – what it’s trying to say
The cartoon shows an aeroplane labelled “League
of Nations” poised on the edge of a high cliff titled
“The Old Order of Things.” This cliff represents the
violent, imperial, and uncooperative world that led
to World War I. The plane is full of people —
presumably statesmen — preparing for takeoff.
Below, on the horizon, a signpost points toward
“Disarmament and the Abolition of War,” symbolising the League’s idealistic goals.
At first glance, the cartoon appears optimistic. The sun is rising behind the signpost, suggesting a new
dawn of peace. The League is modern (an airplane being a relatively recent invention in 1919), suggesting
progress. The caption, “Ready to start,” adds to the feeling that this is a hopeful beginning.
However, a deeper reading reveals subtle concerns. The plane is teetering on the edge of a cliff — a risky
place to launch from, especially since planes of the time were unreliable. The implication is that the
League is attempting something bold but dangerous, built on unstable ground. The phrase “Old Order of
Things” carved into the cliff implies that while the League claims to be new, it may still be attached to old
power structures, suggesting continuity rather than true change.
Moreover, while the plane appears ready, it’s unclear whether it can fly. The figures inside may symbolise
the great powers, but their unity and ability to work together are unproven. This suggests that the
League’s success is far from guaranteed — it could take off, crash, or never leave the ground at all.
Why I think it was released at the time
This cartoon was likely published around 1919–1920, just as the League was being formally launched. It
reflects post-war optimism mixed with realistic caution. After the horrors of WWI, there was strong
public desire for a peaceful system — but also doubt about whether the League could deliver that peace.
The cartoonist probably intended to show support for the League’s aims while questioning whether it was
practically ready for the job. It may also reflect British scepticism about whether such a grand project,
especially without U.S. support, could truly succeed.
Background information on what was happening at the time
● WWI had ended in 1918, and the world was recovering from massive destruction.
● The Treaty of Versailles (1919) included the creation of the League of Nations as part of
Woodrow Wilson’s vision for a new world order.
● The League aimed to promote disarmament, settle disputes peacefully, and prevent war through
collective security.
● However, the U.S. refused to join, weakening the League from the beginning.
● Many believed the League’s moral ideals were admirable, but it lacked military power or full
international support.
● Critics feared it might be more symbolic than effective — an ambitious plan built on fragile
foundations.
