This paper, after reporting some research indicating the long-term effects of the experience of the Second World War, looks at how such a traumatic event and its sequelae should be understood in terms of the theoretical framework supporting the use of reminiscence work, most especially Erikson's life stages. Traumatic memories of the war are rarely reported in published accounts of reminiscence work. It is pointed out that this may be partly due to people with painful memories not volunteering for reminiscence groups, and that Coleman's (1986) research data would support this conclusion. Coleman's work has not been sufficiently ‘heard’ because of the much stronger framing of reminiscence as stimulation by such authors as Norris (1986). The paper looks at interpersonal difficulties of servicemen and civilians in communicating about the war; and why they might well find it easier to utilise the emotionally simpler and less unpleasant accounts offered by the media, especially film. The leaders of reminiscence groups, often having had little training, operate without awareness of such issues, and within a framework where ‘reminiscence as stimulation’ has been transmuted into the trivialising ‘reminiscence as fun’. It is suggested that mental health workers should offer regular supervision and training to reminiscence group leaders. The need for clinical awareness of the importance of the war in shaping people's lives both before and after the war is highlighted, as is the need for readily available and sympathetic psychotherapeutic services for this cohort.