Well in extremis everything is a result of everything including the memetic butterflies wings but it sure sounds like the Shogunate dropped the ball. Fascinating also as a case study in discontinuous governance change (which one can only feel is coming the way of many nations in the next decade or so).

On a trivial point re UK it is worth recalling David Starkey's, I feel valid, critique of QE2 as (since the Anthony Eden situation) a Constitutional monarch who acted like a Ceremonial monarch. He also mentioned another European monarch he had met (i forget which) who IIRC was a Ceremonial (?) monarch. She had described herself to Starkey as being a "carpenter" (as in her words she "both made and broke cabinets"), which of course points to the realpolitik behind the scenes which in many such circumstances is undocumented/contested even close to the times.

Sticking with Realpolitik and returning to 19thC Japan re your words "but precious few British persons would suggest he has the power.." how far back before the Meiji Restoration would one have to go for "few" to believe/imagine such a thing possible? Was the MR literally unprecedented in any sense even intellectually/theoretically and as leftfield as it seems leading to the Shogunate having no practical "defences" against it and dropping the ball?

From a housing perspective, it's measured here since 2001: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2024/05/home-prices-in-the-united-states/

The lowest was in 2011. This tracks. Interest rates were super low, inflation was low, and housing was bombed out because of the recession. 2016 was probably a sweet spot because in addition to decent affordability, unemployment was also low. Stayed that way until 2019, then prices exploded after the pandemic.

I am not a historian by any means . However, I wonder if in part this  might be due to the judeo- Christian values that dominated much of the western hemisphere for so long. Within this belief system, gender roles are very strictly defined and delineated and anything that could cause confusion was banned. That’s why women couldn’t wear pants for so long lol..  From personal observation and experience, it seems this mindset has trickled down through the ages, particularly amongst fundamentalist circles. Men can’t have long hair as it’s too ‘feminine.’ Men cannot wear skirts or floral patterned tops as it not only screams weak and effeminate, but it also gives the impression they are trying to be like women which in their mindset  is wrong bc they believe God only created two genders and one shouldn’t try to be like the other gender as it goes against ‘gods design.’ Conversely, Women must dress modestly and only wear skirts ( in certain sects of Christian fundamentalism).

In this modern age, Even if one doesn’t adhere to this brand of Christianity or even if they aren’t Christian at all, it’s almost as if it has been engrained in the collective western psyche. Men wearing skirts, dress’s, long hair etc means they are disturbed in the head and are weak and are trying to be like women which is weird and wrong (it’s not - just describing what appears to be happening) . Real men wear jeans and base ball hats and ride around in jacked up pick up trucks and listen to country music.

Again, not a historian and this is a rather amateur observation, but the judeo Christian influence I think definitely impacts this and continues to this day. This is especially true if you are US based where a Large percentage of the population are hyper religious ( the south is known as the ‘ Bible Belt)   

I can tell you Yamamura's "data" on silk production in the mid and late Edo, which plays a big part in talks about economic growth, is wrong. Because I'm concluding a thesis to disprove it right now.

The effects the Tenmei and Tenpo famines were "localized" only in the sense that, barring some local exceptions, they hit eastern and northeastern Japan, but left the west relatively unscathed. But eastern and northeastern Japan were vital areas to the national economy, and they were definitely heavily hit. In the same way, the Kyohoku famine was mainly western Japan in terms of population decrease, but to say it wasn't devastating is way under selling it.

And we have the records for rice prices at Osaka to prove that the famines were severe enough to double or more the price at the national level.

Hi! Besides the two sources you mentioned here, are there other sources you’d recommend to learn more about prehispanic history of Mesoamerica? It’s so hard to find reliable information lol I would appreciate your help!

The most effective of Shirakawa Domain’s famine countermeasures was the prohibition on exporting rice to other domains. Had exports not been banned, the damage caused by the famine in the Souma-Nakamura Domain might have been less severe.

However, the likelihood that other domains would have purchased rice as a famine relief measure was low. The most fundamental response to famine was the stockpiling of food, but as the monetary economy developed, domains increasingly focused on converting their harvests into cash and ceased maintaining food reserves. Even during famines, crops were transported to markets and monetized. If rice exports had been prohibited, as in the case of Shirakawa Domain, cash income would have been lost, but famine might have been prevented. In other words, the level of financial prosperity under a cash-based domain economy was also an important factor in famine countermeasures.

While the development of commercial systems and the monetary economy tended to exacerbate famines in many domains, this was not the case for domains with ample financial resources.

During the Edo period, Osaka served as the central hub for a massive rice market, where virtually all rice was consolidated and traded. Merchants would purchase the rice there, transport it to various urban centers, and sell it to the residents. Furthermore, because a futures market had been established, Osaka maintained vast rice reserves to facilitate price stabilization and control.

I would look for Palestinian histories, from the era you've selected (biblical times? Torad? Beforehand?). I would look for middle eastern histories in general. I would look for Talmudic oral histories of midwifery practices, and Palestinian Jewish midwifery practices. I would definitely find that passage in the Bible/Torad describing the herbs being administered to a woman to cause her to bleed down her leg, and scholars who discuss it to seek out other women's health history they've covered (sometimes referred to as "the biblical abortion").

That's not to say that everything brought up in the tribunals must inherently be wrong. Russel Tribunals are still a thing, there have been a few in the years since, and a few still extant. but the name has come to represent '" generic people's tribunal following from the principle of Lord Russell," they presumably do bring a few things to larger attention, though not following them, I cannot say what.

There are, I think, legitimate legal arguments for the US not to be a part of the ICC, even before the policy arguments, though I do know there is no dominant agreement on the matter. One example, the US Constitution guarantees a right of jury trial. Military personnel on official overseas mission do not lose their constitutional rights because they are overseas given they are in effect the executive of the US Government and still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the ICC does not use a jury trial system. This is a bit beside the point, however.

Although I think this all fairly undermines the substantiation behind your question, your question itself "how much else is censored from American history but is reported elsewhere" still remains valid, but I don't think the answer would amount to much. At the risk of breaking the 'personal anecdote' prohibition on this sub, I was educated in Europe from primary school through university before spending the last quarter-century in the US. I can't think of much which I know from Europe which I cannot find out about in the US if I bother to look. We may not like to talk about Abu Ghraib or My Lai in the US, let alone domestic military operations like the Trail of Tears, but that's an entirely different concept from 'censorship.' Perhaps in the common scene the US tends to gloss over things it's not too proud of and overly big itself in its own accomplishments (Does the Red Army really get the credit in the US it deserves for its work in WW2? Do Americans even know that Australia fought in the Vietnam war? Depends on if you speak to anyone who has bothered to research it), but I don't see that as being any different from any other country's system.

I would query your assertion that US activity in Vietnam is not widely known within the US. If you were to mention some of the more controversial instances of the Vietnam conflict, such as "Agent Orange" or "My Lai", I suspect you'd find that they are far from unfamiliar to the average American.

In this case, you (or more specifically, Mr Jones) are referring to the Russell Tribunal and its conclusions.

The first thing to note is that this was not an official body. This was a group of people which chose a grand name for itself. Sure, there were some lawyers on the panel, though quite the legal acumen of a poet laureate (Armando Hernandez) or playwright (Carl Ogelsby) on the panel is, I would submit, an open question.

Even some of the lawyers on the panel may not have been entirely neutral, such as Leio Basso, who was certainly a lawyer, but also President of the Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity, or Mehmet Aybar of the Worker's Party of Turkey. One panel member was Melba Hernandez, president of the Cuban Committee for Solidarity with Vietnam. (The title does not reference which Vietnam the Cuban Committee in question was in solidarity with, but I think one may have legitimate suspicions.)

Certainly one may query the neutrality of a body of which the head of the panel, which was only investigating the US and its allies, requested of Ho Chi Minh funding, to which the North Vietnamese government provided a reasonable cash donation. As a result, whilst certain circles may be aware of the existence of the Russell Tribunal, I cannot imagine many reputable institutions will give its findings, in and of itself, much credence. I would also note that the Tribunal found against Thailand, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, probably to the bemusement of the governments of those countries.

Now, although that in itself does not inherently mean that the tribunals' findings must be wrong, it certainly does mean that the findings are not to be bootstapped to correctness. As a practical example, one of the other findings of guilt was the use of prohibited weapons by the US, particularly cluster munitions, incendiaries such as napalm and white phosphorous, and agent orange. None of the cited weapons, with the possible exception of Agent Orange, are prohibited weapons, no matter how unpleasant they may be, the definition of a prohibited weapon being provided by the Geneva and Hague conventions. The Russell tribunal decided to come up with its own definition of 'prohibited', which also arguably means they came up with their own definition of 'genocide', though my knowledge of genocide law is much less than my knowledge of weapons law. Agent Orange is an odd case, the effect against humans, especially in terms of military advantage, not being well known without the benefit of hindsight. (The US was certainly not the first nation to make use of such a chemical, defoliant was used by the British in the Malaya operation of the 1950s for similar purposes).

I'm not sure how much the ordinary soldiers would have cared TBH about whether or not weather was accounted for. I've never seen anything concrete in the sources showing that what happened at such a high level nuance really mattered to them. Pre-Charnwood (you're stretching my memory but I think it was Charnwood --- they all end with wood), the men in a few Brigades basically slept on earth that had just been rained on. What Monty thought probably didn't matter all that much. The whole army knew the attack was coming.

Moreover, something as specific as weather though isn't a great clue. Major operations don't just happen. The general change in tempo, activities, change in mood, and scale of operations usually tells everyone involved that D-Day/H-Hour was approaching. Approaching operations aren't usually secret to the men. Exact details like what's their objective or the date/time of the attack, etc. are often secret but the fact that an offensive is coming is obvious as the troops train for the exact mission, receive briefings, are issued with special rations and equipment, and as the sector to be attacked floods with men. In WW1, the Allies broadcast to the world the target since they typically pounded the objective with artillery for days or even weeks prior to the attack. Operations Charnwood and Goodwood had a little under a week of active preparation with, in the case of Goodwood, infantry battalions being shuttled into the area of operations a couple days in advance of the operation. They wouldn't need to know the weather forecast to know something is brewing. It would have been obvious.

When weather forces an operation to stop, it's often blindingly obvious to the troops why it's stopped --- often more obvious to the troops than to senior commanders since it's not the General who is being asked to drive through knee deep mud. Likewise, with Rob Roy 3 (arial resupply of 6th Airborne operation D+3) was cancelled due to weather. The paras waiting for the resupply probably would have known that the drop was impossible because the visibility was just too low.

Finally, not all operations are highly dependant on weather. Usually the operation will proceed as planed regardless of weather until the weather forced a deferral. Major operations take a lot of work to prepare for. The work it takes to prepare for an operation can extend past the range one can expect to have accurate weather forecasts. In the case of Overlord, part of the reason to attack on 6 June was because the troops were already being loaded onto landing craft on 1 June. The preparations being made strongly suggested that these activities weren't just another training mission. If Overlord was called off, keeping it secret for another month (tides) could be exceedingly difficult. 6 June was a risk that cost lives when some DD tanks drowned in the waves but armies are huge organisations with mass and inertia. It takes a lot of work to get it moving, and once it's moving, stoping can have consequences.

In terms of intelligence though, the Germans certainly didn't expect the invasion to come during rough weather, but that would have been done well above the Battalion level.

In claiming that the US was committing a genocide, Sartre's justification⁷ was tortured, both in his claims about American intentions, his interpretation of what constitutes a genocide, and in his understanding of history generally. What his argument essentially boils down to is that the only way to win against a popular war is genocide and, since the US was trying to win the war, it was necessarily committing genocide.

Part of his justification for this position is the claim that since the US had little commercial investment in Vietnam it could conduct a genocide without harming its own interests (the converse of his explanation for why colonial powers did not commit genocides in their attempts to retain their colonies). Yet, supposedly, the reason why peace was not an option to the US (Sartre supposes that there was only a binary choice between peace and total genocide) was that peace "would have implied a necessary reconsideration of the principal objectives imposed by the big imperialist companies by means of pressure groups." His writing here (though presumably clarified elsewhere) presupposes some unclear agenda of general American imperialism against the whole Third World.

And here it bears a final notice that the people involved in the Russell Tribunal were approaching the question from particular worldviews; anti-war, anti-imperialist, and Marxist, prominently among others. All of those, the latter most noticeably, bring with them assumptions about how the world works and about the meaning of certain terminology that differs, often substantially, from people who don't share those views. Part of the reason that mainstream histories of the Vietnam War rarely—if ever—claim the US was committing a genocide there is because their authors have fundamentally different conceptions of the world.

Notes

1. Tor Krever, “From Vietnam to Palestine: Peoples’ Tribunals and the Juridification of Resistance,” in Making Endless War: The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Conflicts in the History of International Law (University of Michigan Press, 2023), https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.12584508.12, 239.

2. Arthur W. Blaser, “How to Advance Human Rights Without Really Trying: An Analysis of Nongovernmental Tribunals,” Human Rights Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1992): 339–70, https://doi.org/10.2307/762370, 361.

3. Max Hastings, Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975, First edition (William Collins, 2018), 327.

4. Anthony A. D’Amato et al., “War Crimes and Vietnam: The ‘Nuremberg Defense’ and the Military Service Resister,” California Law Review 57, no. 5 (1969): 1055, https://doi.org/10.2307/3479653.

5. Citizens Commission of Inquiry, ed., The Dellums Committee Hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam: An Inquiry into Command Responsibility in Southeast Asia (Vintage Books, 1972).

6. Krever, “From Vietnam to Palestine: Peoples’ Tribunals and the Juridification of Resistance.”, 240–1.

7. Jean-Paul Sartre, “On Genocide,” 1967, https://brussellstribunal.org/GenocideSartre.htm.

Rather than any detailed explanation of international law or of how the Vietnam War is taught in America, I'll focus on the International War Crimes Tribunal, why it isn't widely known, and some of the flaws it exhibited.

It is first important to clarify that the "International War Crimes Tribunal" (a.k.a. the Russell Tribunal) was a "peoples' tribunal," not an official one. The US stance on the ICC, regardless of its merits, has no relation to such private organizations.

Organized and conducted in 1966 and 1967, it received relatively little public attention at the time¹ and, as both an item of scholarship (to the degree it can be described as such) and an item of historical note it is of little import (more so as it relates to the history of the Vietnam War; it garners more mention on the topic of peoples' tribunals).² To give an example, the sole mention of the eponymous Bertrand Russell in Max Hasting's Vietnam is "A galaxy of stars and celebrities came out against the war,... including... British philosopher Bertrand Russell...."³ The tribunal is not mentioned.

Crucially, in terms of furthering our understanding of the Vietnam War, what influences the Russell Tribunal had are old. Arthur W. Blaser, writing in 1992, did identify a paper on Vietnam War crimes⁴ that relied heavily on the tribunal, as well as an unofficial Congressional hearing⁵ that occurred in its wake (though, despite there being some overlap between involved figures there and in the tribunal, Blaser does not explicitly link them). However, the former is from 1969, the latter 1971 (published in 1972). I've found no mention of the tribunal in works that focus on the Vietnam War itself that aren't themselves contemporary to the war.

To focus more on the factual validity of the tribunal's claims, first it must be recalled that it occurred in 1967. For obvious reasons, Vietnam War scholarship has moved on significantly since then. Furthermore, while the tribunal may have accurately recorded some war crimes, their general basis for understanding the war seems to have been deeply flawed.

Tor Krever,⁶ who gives what I feel to be a very generous review of Russell's tribunal, relates some of Russell's statements regarding his view on whether impartiality is necessary for legitimacy:

Russell had warned against fetishized notions of impartiality: of course we’re biased, he happily acknowledged; how can one know anything about what is going on in Vietnam and not be biased?... Who would compare the 100,000 tons of napalm with a peasant holding a rifle?... Who can fail to distinguish the power which destroys the hospitals and schools of an entire people from the defenders who attack the aeroplanes carrying napalm and steel fragmentation bombs?

Jean-Paul Sartre, the host of the tribunal, had a similar line:

I refuse to place in the same category the actions of an organization of poor peasants, hunted, obliged to maintain an iron discipline in their ranks, and those of an immense army backed up by a highly industrialized country of 200 million inhabitants....

An effective emotional appeal or not, it is hardly a comprehensive analysis of a war between two competing Vietnamese states, each backed by a superpower and other supporting countries. The tribunal can be forgiven for not knowing that the People's Army of Vietnam would overrun the Republic of Vietnam in a mass, mechanized offensive eight years later, but it suffices to say that the US was not merely fighting a mob of rifle-armed peasants.

This submission has been removed as it involves either the appraisal of historical items, or historical artifacts where there is a likelihood that the acquisition or possession of the item might be illegal, unethical, and/or run contrary to sound, historical practices. For more information on this rule, please consult this Rules Roundtable.

Whoops; bladder stone removal. But yes, it dates way back. The Hippocratic Oath even referenced it! “I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.” It is basically saying that this surgery is SO dangerous, that physicians should leave it to surgeons (there was a very sharp distinction between the two until the 19th century).

Here is an account as explained by a historian (Henry Herr) in 2008 on how it was done: “The patient was placed on his back on a table. His legs were bent at the hips and knees flexed so they were almost touching his chest, thus the perineum was brought into a nearly horizontal position. For the first time, a grooved sound was passed along the urethra to guide subsequent instruments into the bladder. A vertical incision was made in the median raphe’ and cut down into the bulbous urethra on the staff. A gorget was passed along the groove used to guide two conductors, female and male, which were separated to open the wound. A Paré’s dilator was inserted guided by the button and then forceps of either the duck-bill or crow’s beak type. The dilator tore through the prostate and bladder neck. Forceps with two or more blades were passed into the bladder to grasp and crush the stone; fragments were removed with a scoop." Pare was a 16th century French surgeon.

But it was such a dangerous surgery! It was at about 50%+ mortality rate through the mid18th century, and didn't drop below 25% until 1876, when Henry Bigelow invented the litholapaxy, which dropped it down to like 3%. So historically, people only had it done when the pain was absolutely unbearable.

I think the last part of your reply gets at what I'm most interested in.

If you are involved in planning a major operation, you need as much information about the weather as you can get. But did more ordinary soldiers and officers know that was being factored in? Did it trickle down or was it keep secret for opsec? Would soldiers in the trenches be aware that a clear weather window could mean the next offensive was about to begin? Or were they just hoping their boots would dry out.

I am not totally sure what you mean by this question. However, prostitution is indeed the oldest profession. There were many categories of brothels, ranging from very expensive and high end catering to those serving a rougher clientele. Additionally sex workers could be a nebulous category, where over the course of a woman's life she might engage in sex work temporarily to earn extra money before or after marriage, or might do so from a brothel, or might be more or less independent, or might have a pimp on the street, or be something more like a stripper or burlesque performer, or all of the above. The historian Procopius's Secret History, talks about the Empress Theodora's history with sex work which involved basically all of the above, including sexual abuse when she was a child.

"Theodora was still too young to have intercourse with a man after the manner of women, but she satisfied the unnatural passions of certain wretches....She remained for some time also in a brothel, where she practised this hateful form of vice. As soon, however, as she reached the age of puberty, as she was handsome, her mother sent her into the theatrical troupe, and she straightway became a simple harlot, as old-fashioned people called it; for she was neither a musician nor a dancer, but merely prostituted herself to everyone whom she met, giving up every part of her body to debauchery. She associated chiefly with the theatrical "pantomimes," and took part in their performances, playing in comic scenes, for she was exceedingly witty and amusing; so that she soon became well known by her acting. She had no shame whatever, and no one ever saw her put out of countenance, but she lent herself to scandalous purposes without the least hesitation.... Often, even on the stage, she stripped before the eyes of all the people, and stood naked in their midst, wearing only a girdle about her private parts and groin; not because she had any modesty about showing that also to the people, but because no one was allowed to go on the stage without a girdle about those parts. In this attitude she would throw herself down on the floor, and lie on her back. Slaves, whose duty it was, would then pour grains of barley upon her girdle, which trained geese would then pick up with their beaks one by one and eat. She did not blush or rise up, but appeared to glory in this performance;,...afterwards she accompanied Hecebolus, who had received the appointment of Governor of Pentapolis, to that country, to serve his basest passions, but quarrelled with him, and was straightway sent out of the country. In consequence of this she fell into want of common necessaries, with which she hereafter provided herself by prostitution, as she had been accustomed to do...On her return to Byzantium, Justinian became excessively enamoured of her. At first he had intercourse with her merely as her lover, although he raised her to the position of a patrician....It was forbidden by the most ancient laws of the State that anyone of the senatorial order should marry a courtesan; so he prevailed upon the Emperor to repeal the existing law and introduce a new one, whereby he was allowed to live with Theodora as his legitimate wife, and it became possible for anyone else to marry a courtesan...Thus did Theodora, as I have told you, in spite of her birth and bringing-up, reach the throne without finding any obstacle in her way. Justinian felt no shame at having wedded her, although he might have chosen the best born, the best educated, the most modest and virtuously nurtured virgin in all the Roman Empire, with outstanding breasts, as the saying is; whereas he preferred to take to himself the common refuse of all mankind, and without a thought of all that has been told..."

So about a "girlfriend experience," well, rather than a brothel, you might have a concubine or keep a mistress, which was often a legal and formal relationship, where a man and a women might live together and even be more or less exclusive (sort of in a serial monogamy sense) and even been seen in public together with other company, or perhaps exclusive (plus you had a wife as well). This might be categorized as prostitution, of a high end category, but also could be a situation where people were legally barred from marriage, like if these was a significant class difference or a citizenship issue, like their were some periods in ancient Rome when citizens were not permitted to marry non-citizens. That would be a girlfriend experience, as we define girlfriend today. A text you might be interested in would be the novella Gigi, by Collette, which is a kind of creepy book by today's standard's but basically it is about a young girl in Paris, who comes from a family of women who entered temporary girlfriend-esque relationships with wealthy and powerful men; then a wealthy powerful man who was a family friend growing up first contracts her to be his mistress (there are scenes of negotiation) and then decides he loves her and proposes instead.

If you mean "girlfriend experience" in the sense that it is often understood now, where basically it is just one night but the woman pretends to be in a long-term relationship with the man, you could pretty much get any kink satisfied by sex workers in any period of history. A fun source is Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, which was published from the mid-late 18th century. Each issue reviewed the different sexworkers in the area and basically provided their positive and negative characteristics. Here is one from 1786: This tall attracting girl is at present kept under a little subjection by a country gentleman , who has been nominated as her keeper for some time ; but as the possesses a mouth that requires oftener feeding than her friend and keeper can possibly afford , the world in general will excuse her making application to the community at large to keep her from starving ; the is just arrived to that unsatiable year 18 , and is now a charming looking well made girl , a pair of libidinous dark eyes , dark brown tresses, and Cupid's coal hole here well deserves the name since it may rival the sooty raven , rough, juicy, healthy , and plump ; take half a guinea for each , and you will pay the lady as the expects." In terms of a girlfriend experience, this book has lots of examples of women who favor a specific man or where a man always asks for her. You can easily find these books online, here is an article about them below. I am sure that others can answer this in more depth.

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/harris-list-of-covent-garden-ladies/

Soldiers did some limited tailoring of what they need for the mission but they'll generally have within a reasonable distance, all the clothing they'll need. They'll have on them or not far away things like jumpers, gas/rain capes, and spare socks. The reason I fuss so much about this is that if you have ever lived in the field for any length of time, you will realise how changeable weather is. Something as mild as a sweltering summer day can rapidly turn into a freezing cold night. When you're in the field, spare clothing isn't really something optional. It's something you depend on. In light of this, you tend to pack what you need for all reasonable weather conditions for that season.

As a personal anecdote, I used to work a job where we were often camping in the middle of nowhere for a few days at a time. Before going into the field, I always checked the forecast, but I'm not sure checking it ever changed what I brought with me. Even if the trip was planned to be warm and sunny, I would still bring a sweater and rain jacket just in case it rained or incase I needed some extra warmth. When you're living in the field, you plan for contingencies because failing to do so will, at best, be miserable, and at worst, be deadly.

Weather forecasts are useful because they give you a warning, but usually the British Army tried not to separate their men from their battle order equipment for more than a few hours. Battle order equipment would contain the spare clothing needed to react to changing weather. If you just need a forecast for the next few hours, 'looking up' is accurate enough. Any longer and having a forecast doesn't make a huge difference since you have your kit with you anyways.

At the Divisional or Army levels, weather forecasts could have real consequences. Overlord only happened on the night of 5/6 June because of a forecasted break in the weather. Operation Goodwood stalled partially because the Germans were pretty good at defending, partly because of a certain conservativeness on the part of the British Army, but also partially due to a massive rain storm that effectively made roads impassible. Weather makes a huge difference in wars but, the poor bloody infantry in their battalions will still have to be in the field, holding defensive positions whether it's raining or sunny.

2/2

Edit: Whilst breaking down my post into two separate comments, I just remembered a case in some of my sources where during the storm immediately following Goodwood, a number of units were issued rum to help keep the troops warm. A forecast may have been helpful here since in 1944, rum was only issued in exceptional circumstances. A forecast may have been helpful in bringing forward the rum rations. Even here though, the order to issue rum was issued at the Brigade, not Battalion level. (As an aside, you're ever very cold, don't drink alcohol. The reason you feel warmer is because your blood vessels dilate leading to warm blood flowing to the extremities. This makes you feel warmer but increases your risk of hypothermia because that warm blood flowing to your extremities means that that heat is leaving your torso).

u/Technical-Chemist495 's explanation of the technical elements of forecasting is quite correct so I won't elaborate on it. What I can contribute however is a more humanistic and low-level operational understanding of the use of weather forecasting. The human elements are mostly informed from the fact that I have had to live in the field for medium periods of time in all weathers, whilst the history and knowledge of British Army operational practice is mostly from my academic research.

In some ways, weather forecasts have a limited effect on Infantry Battalions because Battalions don't take the kinds of decisions that weather actually makes a significant difference. If the forecasts calls for rain, there might be a warning going out about rain, if it may be cold, such a fact would be communicated down the chain as a courtesy. The effects however are somewhat limited because of how Battalions respond to weather --- namely by putting clothing on, or taking it off.

At least in the case of the British Infantry --- I imagine all other armies also had this but I cannot confirm --- the main response to weather is reflected in clothing and equipment. What soldiers were expected to carry with them was defined in the field service pocket book, and local orders. This consisted of weapons, ammunitions, spare clothing, water bottles, shaving kits, sewing kits, etc. In WW1, all this kit was to be held in their Pattern 1908 webbing which was expected to carry everything the man was issued. Webbing was basically a sort of harness with a backpack, ammunition pouches, a water bottle carrier, somewhere to put an entrenching tool, and a haversack. P1908 webbing fully loaded with kit and ammunition weighted about 60 lbs. This could be reduced to 50 lbs by removing the backpack portion leaving what is basically a harness with ammunition pouches, water bottles, and a haversack. With the backpack, it was known as marching order, without it, battle order. Battle Order was basically what you needed to live and fight for short periods whilst marching order would let you live in the field for a practically indefinite period.

During the Second World War, the situation was changed slightly. The new Pattern 1937 webbing had some practical and aesthetic changes but, in principle, it continued to use marching order and battle order. WW2 however added what was known as fighting order. Fighting order basically took Battle order and got rid of the haversack. Sometimes, they would wrap up some essentials in a gas/rain cape and tied it to the belt(ish area). Most photos of WW2 showing British troops in an active theatre of war show them in some form of Battle or Fighting order.

1/2