I have lately been interested in the idea of history as a tool. Over the previous decades, I am curious as to how much of what past societies taught as 'history' was not so much 'history' in the academic scientific pursuit we all strive for it to be, but rather, I wonder if there are notable accounts of governments creating new histories for a people, and teaching that in a stylized way in an attempt to mold and shape the narrative of that society. I see a large part of the identity of a society resting in the history of that society (and I am sure others have noted this as well). So, with that in mind, have there been clear instances where a leadership hoped to reshape a people by telling them a new 'superior' history in contrast to the old history, which maybe they perceived as damaging, harmful or subversive?
I'm sure you're looking for explicit examples and I'm sure other posters will help you on that front, but I'd just like to point out that all history education - and education in itself - is a form of propaganda and indoctrination. With history education, it's often quite blatant. You obviously can't showcase all of history in history classes, let alone all versions of said history. Choices have to be made and these choices are always political in nature.
Take the history education most readers here will be familiar with: history education in America. In setting up the national curriculum or writing text books, the following questions - among others - are asked:
Where do we start our history education? The beginning of time? The beginning of the country?
What do we include? How much attention do we give to every facet? How much attention do we give to slavery and how much time does that leave for the history of the native Americans? How do we frame both these issues?
What can we leave out? What has to be present? Do we include a list of all presidents and leave out - for instance - the Banana wars? Do we focus on political history or do we give due attention to social and economic history? Do we focus more on the 19th or the 20th century or...?
What structure are we talking about here? Will it just be a list of facts and dates or are we trying to form a clear narrative? If we're trying to form a narrative, what will it be?
And so on and so on. Every one of these questions has an answer that's political and biased one way of the other. Neutrality doesn't exist. The result is that intentionally or not, you end up with a certain narrative presented by the classes. More often than not, it's a semi-mythological story of the nation, meant to inspire a national identity in the population. This doesn't have to be blatant, nor does it have to include lies - it can be totally factually correct, but presented according to a certain interpretation.
This of course isn't limited to the US. I live in Belgium and my history classes in secondary school generally presented a general history of Western Europe - mainly the area now known as Belgium - and later also the US. It started in the first grade with prehistory and ended somewhere in the 1980s. Even in six years, that's quite a lot of ground to cover. But you can already see some choices in there - limiting itself to the history of Western Europe, immediately othering non-Europeans and forming a narrative about We The Europeans. The history of the area of Belgium is also included, going to absurd lengths to instil some form of national identity. I cringe every time I see the mention of the Belgae during Roman days in History of Belgium textbooks.
This form of indoctrination is fairly subtle. It pushes a certain ideology - political liberalism and capitalism, for instance -, but it doesn't really beat you over the head with it. It also helps that we're less inclined to see our own indoctrination. There are less subtle examples even there, though. For instance, up until 20-30 years ago, Belgian classes couldn't learn about Leopold II's exploits in Congo or about Patrice Lumumba's assassination. Now, they're prominently featured (if you've got a good teacher). In the past, Flemish nationalism didn't have much influence on the curriculum, now it's growing and can't be ignored.
So, my answer to your question is: every society that had organised education - and many without - have some form of indoctrination in place. This isn't bad, per se, though it can be used for the wrong purposes. To throw out an example of this, you can look at Michael Gove's attempt to rewrite the history curriculum in Britain. He's rewriting the curriculum to reflect an archaic and conservative vision, shunning the help of actual historians. I see he's even been in the news the past days for it again.