I know there was a strong insurgency in Germany following WW2, but I would guess that the Russian, British and US occupation along with the scale of the destuction would have made something on the scale of militias hard to pull off. Even though it was I think 5 years before elections there, "warlord" isn't something that comes to mind when I think of Germany. Germany was also called a quagmire and the NYT ran peices saying how we failed to manage a post-war Europe. I can think of many differences, but those are a few similarities.

Japan is another thought (post WW2). Maybe the "invisible islands" line put that thought in my head. Again, there was a strong insurgency. The Japanese had their own version of suicide bombers I'm sure. But my guess is that we did a better job of disarming Japan and there would not have been armed groups walking around.

Maybe WW2 isn't reaching back far enough into history...

How about this: We're assuming you're talking about the US being the occupier. What if you're quote is of England occupying parts of America or New England? Don't have a year however.