Talk:Dutch famine of 1944–1945

Scientific legacy

The paragraph that the third generation experienced negative health effects needs a source. I looked through the publications on the topic fairly thoroughly and didn't find any claiming that result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.101.251 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Epigenetic changes

this header should be removed, because the paragraphs below contain nothing about epigenetics but instead speak of health problems caused by the famine.

Incomplete reference

Hello. Article refers to a literature that is not cited completely. "Banning (1946) p 93". Seems like it was copies from an academic paper without a full title. The source should be clearly identifiable and verifiable IMHO. Does anybody know the source? Thank you. w.0q (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the Bibliography, first item. Banning, C. "Food Shortage and Public Health, First Half of 1945," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.... Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen! I didn't see the references are organised like this. I guess this talk can be deleted now? w.0q (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro

"Most of the victims were reported to be elderly men.[4]"

This seems weirdly out of place as a paragraph at the start of the article. Could it be integrated into another section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.229.82 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Title is wrong

Its selfevident that the title of this article is incorrect. Most of the deaths occurred in the period jan-may 1945. A better title is "Dutch famine of 1944-45". Best regards JRB-Europe (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@JRB-Europe and Beyond My Ken: I have moved the article to Dutch famine of 1944–45 per MOS:ENDASH. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. JRB-Europe (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Causes section

I'm not getting the suppositions put forth in this article. In the third paragraph in this section (which has no sources cited by the way) it says that the Germans cut off the food supply. But the article says that the Dutch railway workers went on strike in order to support the Allies' efforts to liberate the Netherlands via Operation Market Garden. The article also says that the Germans supported Allied airdrops of food in occupied areas. Doesn't make sense. If they were deliberately trying to starve the Dutch, then why allow these operations? Also, if the Germans didn't decree that the food shipments be cut off, how could the food have been transported if the rail lines were down?

Not sure if it's just the article that needs re-working or the history...or both?--RRskaReb talk 20:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• For anyone using the admin-colorizing script, please note that despite the similarities of the background on their sig, RRekaReb is not an admin. They refuse to change the color. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Food was generally transported to the West of the Netherlands by ship, not by train. Cars were only used for military purpose. As reprisal for the Dutch railway strike food transport was halted. The food shortages were therefore not a direct consequence of the strike but of German reactions. Moreover a lot of food produced in the Netherlands was stolen and transported to Germany. After transport was still allowed the extreme harsh winter hampered transport by ship as the rivers were frozen. The food droppings were only allowed by the Germans at the very end of the war. At that point there was no direct contact between the German occupation forces and Berlin. Otherwise, the armistice would surely have been forbidden, result in tens of thousands of more deaths. A last factor is probably the change of command in April at the German side where Christiansen, who imposed both blockade, had been replaced by Blaskowitz, who was derided by Hitler as a "salvation army officer".