To What Extent Did David Low’s Cartoons Accurately Portray European Appeasement Policy Towards Japanese Aggression in the Manchurian Crisis?

2500 Words Feb 10th, 2013 10 Pages
HL HISTORY INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

To what extent did David Low’s cartoons accurately portray European Appeasement Policy towards Japanese aggression in the Manchurian Crisis?

Name: Linda Brownwood
Word Count: 1,848
Number of Pages: 14

Section A: Plan of Investigation
In 1931, a supposed Chinese act of aggression in Manchuria1, dubbed the Mukden Incident, led Japan to respond with a full invasion. By doing so, Japan had broken the oath of non-aggression that it had sworn to the League of Nations. Japan’s failure to comply with any proposed resolutions by the League should have resulted in economic sanctions and/or collective military enforcement. However, the League did neither. Thus, to what extent did David Low’s cartoons
…show more content…
*Images in appendix

European response and eventual appeasement * The League of Nations held a meeting in late 1931 in response to the growing crisis between Japan and China.16 * -------------------------------------------------
On December 10, 1931, the League appointed a commission headed by V.A.G.R. Bulwer-Lytton, a noted British diplomat.17
10. Low, David. “Will the League stand up to Japan?” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Nov 17, 1931. From British Cartoon Archive.
11. Low, David. “The Cat and Mouse Act.” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Feb 17, 1933. From British Cartoon Archive.
12. Low, David. “The Great Wall of China.” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Feb 27, 1933. From British Cartoon Archive.
13. Low, David. “The Open Door Policy in China” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Apr 25, 1934. From British Cartoon Archive.
14. Low, David. “If Looks could Kill” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Nov 11, 1931. From British Cartoon Archive.
15. Low, David. “The Doormat” Cartoon. Evening Standard, Jan 19, 1933. From British Cartoon Archive.
16. "Lytton Report." http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1506.html.
17. Ibid. *
Lytton issued his report in October 1932 and which concluded the following18: * Japan was identified as the aggressor in Manchuria, but the commission noted that Japan had special interests of long standing in Manchuria * China bore some responsibility for the crisis because they sparked an

Related Documents