Neither of them would be extremely helpful to a historian. At least, when it came to learning facts. If the historian was interested in the public's opinion, both could be somewhat helpful. Source B does give a little bit of an insight when the author tells of what the Treaty lacks, but otherwise it's just an argument against it. The cartoon, while it does catch the eye, doesn't do much for general information. In all, the both of them aren't something that the historian would most likely find helpful in comparison to, say, an article about the day of the signing. Does that help at all?
