Apologies if this is slightly off topic for this subreddit, as it's not a question about a specific historical event. But I got to thinking about the well-known quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", and wondered if anyone knew of examples where a government actively sought the services of historians to help prevent this? I'd like to think politicians would appreciate this type of counsel, but sadly suspect many rely more on their own opinions than relevant facts!
In France, the Dépôt de la guerre was first created in 1688 to act as an archive for the military. They collected documents such as maps, military memoirs and diaries, and used contemporary historiographical methods to analyze this information - especially as the Dépôt branched off after 1870 into a cartographical service and a historical section. After WWI, they entirely re-cast the Dépôt as the Service historique de l'Armée and the Service historique de la Marine. The proposed objective of these two services was "the establishment of the education of the past, using scientific and critical methodology." Keep in mind, these services were primarily for military use.
Also after WWI in Europe, you see the first inklings of the creation of the profession of "historian" as an expert consultant, much like the 19th century saw the psychiatrist move from the realm of academia to the armchair. Robert William Seton-Watson, a British historian, defends the idea of the role of the historian in redefining political borders and policies in Eastern Europe. A French historian, Ernest Denis, played such a role in the establishment of the future state of Czechoslovakia that his bust is displayed in Prague.
In 1917, Aristide Briand - the French président du Conseil, forms the Comité d'étude, whose goal is to write reports destined to influence policy decision in the French government. Under the direction of Ernst Lavisse and Paul Vidal de la Blache, and with the support of over thirty other professors, the committee publish over 60 reports that helped define French territorial claims and war objectives. EDIT I should note, however, that neither the government nor the military adopted any of the committee's proposals.
In more recent times, historians have been called as expert witnesses in many judicial cases, especially in cases related to the holocaust. I'll mention one, because it was in 1994, which is JUST on the cusp of askhistorians' 20 year rule.
The writer David Irving sued Professor Deborah Lipstadt for what he claimed were defamatory allegations in her book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Basically, Irving belived he had been cast as a holocaust denier in her analysis and so he sued under grounds of libel. The historian Richard Evans was brought in by the defense to show that Irving had falsified documents and misrepresented statistics, and after working for two years, he submitted an over 700-page report defending Lipstadt's claims. The judge eventually decided in favor of Lipstadt.
The question of whether or not it is appropriate for historians to act as expert witnesses is still being debated. People like Henri Rousso believe that using historians as witnesses is mixing up memory with history, even if Rousso is an advocate for the validity of "contemporary history" ie historians studying the present.