Indeed, and if I'm not mistaken, there were also signs posted ABOARD the ship that it was a potential military target.

The butchering of civilians in the low lands by the Germans wasn't fair either. I would be allied just for that reason.

My country didn't exist at the time, so I can't really trust to nationalism.
The behaviour of the Central Powers in Belgium turns me against them, but neither side had a monopoly on atrocities.
Conscientious objection, possibly, were it not for the horrendous self-loathing that such a choice would bring.

Ah jeez, I dunno. Just give me a Camel on a spring afternoon with a half-tank of petrol.

No, actually the Germans were far more advanced. The German navy would have won if they'd have fought. They were better trained in gunnery. Their ship design of their modern ships were better armored and safer. Great Britain's destroyers however was of better quality. Brtish shells were junk and just bounced off. As Beatty said "Their is something wrong with our ships" (close enough quote). GB had the Kaiser to thank for being too scared to put his expensive ships in danger. Luck won the naval battle, not skill.

Granted:

http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/w/images/Mareno.jpg

Still excited?

Both sides will argure forever about who won at Jutland. However the British were clearly in possession of the battlefield on June 1st 1916. The High Seas fleet although it lost fewer ships was in no position to come out again. After that the North Sea pretty much stalemated. In the end it was the High Seas Fleet's morale which cracked. The British had a far less hospitable base at Scapa but at least they were able to keep themselves busy at sea.

As for better German technology it's kind of interesting that Germany's General Staff (particularly Ludendorff) took a rather dim and skeptical view of the newfangled tank considering Germany's future reputation with them. The Germans only built a few primitive types, leaving the eventual infantry-tank formations which supported the Allied counter-offensives of 1918 to be pioneered by the British and French.

However, Jutland hit the Brits with a huge blow to their naval forces (several thousand Brits killed and quite a few warships sunk). The Germans, however, never really recovered with their battleship fleet. With that said, I would state it as tactically inconclusive.

Jutland for Britain was a tactical defeat but a strategic victory. Again, thank the Kaiser.

Most of the wars of the 20th century have started this way, but others started either as a continutation of international rivalry, inter-tribal warfare, or just sheer expansionism.

id go with the central powers.

You could shoot your fellow Canadians? Mow them down in rows with your Maxim as they advance toward your bunker on Vimy ridge?

I took the question as "If I were God, who will I have helped win", so I chose the Central Powers. My personal reason is Versailles. As treaties go, it is arguably WORSE than the Unequal Treaties on China. The apologists attempts to justify it using Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty the Germans might have sicced on the Allies if they won is asinine.

What really bugs me is not the Massive Reparations, nor the Territorial Losses, or even the Admission of Guilt crap. All that crap goes with losing, and countries tend to get over them (France paid off Germany's reparations after the Prussian-France War surprisingly fast). It is the Military provisions. I don't know why that part is so under-emphasized, when it is (as written), the harshest part. It has no time duration, no set way to pay it off ... etc.

Why don't they say "Well, this is what we're grabbing from you now, but we've got unlimited De Facto rights to get more at any time we please, simply because you don't have an Army left." I don't see a line on Brest-Litovsk that could compare with that clause of unlimited punishment (as written).

The sheer diktatness of that farce makes me utterly unsympathetic to the French when the Germans rolled over them in 1940 - they practically begged for it to happen.

Better to judge a historical event with the facts in existing context before the event ocurred, than to look back and choose sides based on who won the most or who lost the least.

The Germans weren't neccesarily better trained at gunnery. They used a different type of range finder (stereoscopic as opposed to telescopic) which allowed them very accurate opening salvoes, however it had the draw back of tiring the operators eyes and often causing headaches. So this efficiency dropped off as RN effficiency increased over time during an engagement.

Many British shells failed to explode or shattered rather than penetrating fully at Jutland, however, this problem was rectified soon after.

It is true that Geraman capital ships were very well constructed and armoured. But the losses of RN battle cruisers had more to do with the fact they ended up tangling with German BCs and dreadnoughts (plus the BC fleets obssesion with rapid fire and the relaxing of safety regulations to attain this). Some RN ships suffered quite a number of main armament hits and survived the battle.

The High Seas fleet could not match the Grand Fleet in a fleet engagement like Jutland and I would argue that the Germans lost both tactically and strategically at Jutland. If they had not turned away when they did, the numbers of German ships sunk would have been much higher.

The German Navy knew this as their entire strategy was to lure out the Grand Fleet in small groups and defeat each one in turn. It never ventured out again to any great degree as it had discovered at Jutland that it was out gunned and out matched.

Perhaps if the U-boats and battleships had worked together, the Germans could have won Jutland. Unfortunately, the Germans chose to send their ships in first and then send in the U-boats.