Print each page on a different color so that each participant will get one of the squares from just one of the pages (after
cutting them up). Students will form their opinions and build them up or change them as they talk to different partners.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
The U.S. entered WWII lacking
a definite chemical warfare
policy. International law did
not prohibit the U.S. from
engaging in chemical warfare.
The Japanese, moreover, had
already used chemical
weapons in China.
Activity from © 2014 Zwiers, O’Hara, Pritchard. Common Core Standards in Diverse Classrooms. Stenhouse
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
General William Porter argued
that the Japanese had “given us
enough provocation to use gas
or any other weapon on them.”
Others argued that the use of
gas would have shortened the
war and saved thousands of
American soldiers from an
avoidable death.
Activity from © 2014 Zwiers, O’Hara, Pritchard. Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms. Stenhouse
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
After Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death
march, and other Japanese atrocities
were made known, many argued that
the Japanese had no regard for ideas
of decency and humanity. “The
atrocity reports should nullify the
squeamishness any American may
feel,” wrote one official. And President
Roosevelt wrote, “In fighting
Japanese savages all previously
accepted rules of warfare must be
abandoned.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt
characterized the use of chemical
weapons as “inhuman and
contrary to what modern
civilization should stand for…I am
doing everything in my power to
discourage the use of gases and
other chemicals in any war
between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt
characterized the use of chemical
weapons as “inhuman and
contrary to what modern
civilization should stand for…I am
doing everything in my power to
discourage the use of gases and
other chemicals in any war
between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt
characterized the use of chemical
weapons as “inhuman and
contrary to what modern
civilization should stand for…I am
doing everything in my power to
discourage the use of gases and
other chemicals in any war
between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt
characterized the use of chemical
weapons as “inhuman and
contrary to what modern
civilization should stand for…I am
doing everything in my power to
discourage the use of gases and
other chemicals in any war
between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
President Roosevelt
characterized the use of chemical
weapons as “inhuman and
contrary to what modern
civilization should stand for…I am
doing everything in my power to
discourage the use of gases and
other chemicals in any war
between nations.”
President Roosevelt characterized
the use of chemical weapons as
“inhuman and contrary to what
modern civilization should stand
for…I am doing everything in my
power to discourage the use of
gases and other chemicals in any
war between nations.”
Activity from © 2014 Zwiers, O’Hara, Pritchard. Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms. Stenhouse
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in 1922,
“chemical warfare should be
abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in
1922, “chemical warfare should
be abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in
1922, “chemical warfare should
be abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in
1922, “chemical warfare should
be abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in
1922, “chemical warfare should
be abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
John Pershing, the man
responsible for establishing the
first gas warfare unit in the
American military, stated, in
1922, “chemical warfare should
be abolished among nations, as
abhorrent to civilization. It is
fraught with the gravest danger to
noncombatants and demoralizes
the better instincts of humanity.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Careful consideration needed to
be given to the opinions of
citizens, soldiers engaged in
chemical combat, the Allies, and
the rest of the world. “We could
create an ‘incident’ and insist that
the use of gas is retaliatory only,”
Johnson said, “but there is a high
probability that this ruse will be
uncovered.”
Activity from © 2014 Zwiers, O’Hara, Pritchard. Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms. Stenhouse