dunkerque, france

First, Steves' guidebooks have never been touted as comprehensive guidebooks. It is known that he selects areas and towns, cities for what he believes are significant reasons - historical, economic, geographic, etc. - and then covers these areas pretty well. He, obviously does not think that Dunkirk rises to that level. And if it is not include in Fodor's then maybe there is a good reason not to include.

Even though Dunkerque is historically significant as a WWII site and a draw to fans of the novel & movie "Atonement", Rick Steves and Fodors country guides both cater to visitors who typically have a limited amount of travel time (1 to 4 weeks) within any given country and generally want to see only the really big sightseeing draws. For comprehensive coverage that would include the many smaller towns and villages throughout France, you'd need to supplement those guides with a guide geared more towards backpackers (ie, Lonely Planet or Rough Guide). But note that both of those guides do not update their information every year, so if you are looking for lodging or dining recommendations you would still need to verify their recommendations by doing some research on the Internet.

Lonely Planet and the Rough Guide don't exactly give a glowing recommendation, and in my brief time there, I agree with their assessment. While I can't deny the historical significance of the town, it was rebuilt in the completely unattractive but functional post-war style. A few of the landmarks were faithfully restored, but most of the town is rather on the unattractive side. That incredibly moving scene in "Atonement" wasn't filmed in Dunkerque because the modern town looks nothing like it did in the 1940s. (Same reason why "A Bridge Too Far" wasn't filmed in Arnhem or "Der Untergang" wasn't filmed in Berlin). Some of Rick Steves' omissions and inclusions I find a bit puzzling, but I agree with him in not including Dunkerque.

Dunkerque isn't really that horrible and it's made a heck of an effort to improve the central core in the last fifteen years or so. It's been a summer resort for a couple of hundred years. I wind up spending the night there a couple of times a year, either coming off the last ferry or waiting for the first one (cheapskate that I am). There's a good half-dozen interesting places to eat. A buddy and I spent half of a rainy morning looking for a marker/plaque for the evacuation beaches but couldn't find one. Where they are is just to the east of the recreational marina on the east side of town (across the little creek, actually). Note: the marina on the east side of town, not the harbor in the town center or the ferry port out to the west. The surrounding area is full of heavy industry and not worth a glance until you get twenty miles inland. I'd rate it as an okay lunch stop if you're passing by. It's certainly not a destination. The closest place of interst to most tourists is Brugge.

If Ed gave it what looked like about a 45, Rick gives it a zero, others here gave it somewhere in the teens, I have to agree with about a 20. I have driven through and by dozens of times, and once tried - unsuccessfully - to find a museum about WWII despite following a map, GPS and signs. I've never liked the place, or its surroundings. Sorry.

Nigel broke my code: The steak place with the movie posters got 2 points. The fake pub with the moules got 9 points. The hottie on the sailboat got 24 points.

Just went out of our way to drive there in August,after subjecting my teens to Waterloo.
A marker with a couple of wreaths, a town, some seaside cafes and bars, kids playing on the beach. Nothing like the DDay beaches. Parents were content to have seen it but we had to pay the kids off in pizza.

So what did you think of Waterloo?

Waterloo: Place with a hill with a lion on top where one guy committed his forces piecemeal and prematurely. It has three bad bars. Score: 5.2.

Ed, that's cutting. Never been, always thought I should for the history, won't now; not for a 5.2.

I'll credit to Waterloo for the fact that it's preserved at all- battlefield preservation didn't really catch on in Europe until WWI. And that 360 degree painting with the sound effects is kind of cool. But it could easily use some more historical markers to explain what happened a little better.

I went to Waterloo in 1984. Unfortunately, that was my only time there, spent a number of hours seeing the place. It is one site that requires a car for a detailed visit. Luckily I was driven around. I need to go back. "Piecemeal" is an accurate description for that compact place, certainly it wasn't combined.

@ Nigel: Did not take advantage of multiple choice admissions to the museum, the diorama, the climb up the hill.... We paid for their tram ride on paved roads for 40 minutes around Waterloo Battlefield which was and is still farmland. Looking at the turnips, corn, wheat being grown on the bloodied land made me a bit queasy; or was it the diesel smell....Anyway I thought it was worth the drive if you're fond of history as I am.