Dutch Book arguments as the primary way of defending expected utility maximization

The von Neumann-Morgenstern theorem isn't a Dutch book argument, and the primary purpose of Dutch book arguments is to defend classical probability, not expected utility maximization. von Neumann-Morgenstern also assumes classical probability. Jaynes uses Cox's theorem to defend classical probability rather than a Dutch book argument (he says something like using gambling to defend probability is uncouth).

I don't really understand what issue the first reference you cite claims exists. It doesn't seem to be what the second reference you cite is claiming.