Counter intuitively, scholars suggest that traumatic experiences such as forced conscription and the witnessing of atrocities may result in more pro-social behavior, which authors attribute to posttraumatic growth after war. However, a large body of survey research suggests the evidence is more mixed when it comes to intergroup attitudes, begging the question of whether war trauma undermines long-term intergroup cooperation and trust. Here I examine the conditions under which individuals respond to the traumas of war with more, or less, conflictive intergroup attitudes. Going beyond the single country post-war survey approach of previous studies, I examine the relationship between traumatic experiences and intergroup attitudes in two different contexts: post- war Bosnia and Sweden as a settlement country. The Bosnian War generated a massive refugee crisis to which Sweden responded with a generous blanket asylum policy. As a result, the vast majority of these refugees remained settled in Sweden. The findings suggest that deep traumas generally increased intergroup animosity among respondents in Bosnia but not in Sweden. In addition, victims of physical violence in Sweden exhibit less conflictive attitudes than non-victims. Comparing victims in the two countries, those in Sweden generally display less conflictive attitudes but are not more willing to engage across ethnic boundaries. In addition, they express more pessimism regarding intergroup coexistence in Bosnia. The analysis thus uplifts the importance of context in shaping the impact of trauma on intergroup cooperation and trust. To the extent that migration provides more and different material and psychological resources to victims – resources that are not nested within the conflict situation itself – it may better enable them to cope with and move on from the traumas of the past. However, willingness to engage with former adversaries may depend more upon the extent to which intergroup coexistence is part of everyday lived experience.