The film “Spring in Seoul” revived public interest in General Chang Tae-wan, leading many viewers to question whether he compromised with the new military regime after the 12.12 coup. Historically confirmed information shows that Chang Tae-wan never compromised, and his later appointment to a public corporation was not considered “collaboration” by the standards of that era. This article analyzes the controversy, the tragic fate of his family, and the puzzling question of why Chun Doohwan treated him with unusual respect. Understanding these events requires viewing political struggles through the lens of the era—not modern standards.
1. Controversy After the Film “Spring in Seoul”
1.1. Conflicting Evaluations and Public Reaction
Many younger viewers discovered the 12.12 coup through the film and developed a positive impression of the real figure Chang Tae-wan. Some later expressed disappointment when learning he served as CEO of the public corporation that is now Koscom, mistakenly assuming this meant “compromise.”
Certain conservative voices attempted to downplay Chang Tae-wan’s heroism by portraying him as someone who merely accepted a public position, especially as their favored film underperformed compared to “Spring in Seoul.”
However, during the period, such appointments were not seen as moral compromise. Cultural norms of the time must be considered when interpreting these events.
1.2. Historical Conclusion: He Did Not Compromise
By verified historical accounts, Chang Tae-wan never compromised with the new military regime. Confusion stems from interpreting past events through 21st-century standards. At the time, the concept of political rebellion and loyalty was closer to pre-modern, dynastic thinking than modern democratic frameworks.
1.3. The Tragic Fate of Chang Tae-wan’s Family
After the coup succeeded and Chang Tae-wan became the defeated side, his father drank heavily and died saying, “A loyal man cannot survive after a rebellion succeeds,” a sentiment rooted in traditional concepts of political loyalty.
His eldest son, a top student admitted to Seoul National University, later died near his grandfather’s grave under circumstances interpreted as suicide. With no motive for assassination present, his death is believed to be similar to his grandfather’s—an act of despair tied to the family’s downfall.
These tragedies reflect a worldview where political defeat carried the weight of dynastic moral collapse.
1.4. How Political Defeat Was Understood in the Past
In Joseon-era political struggles, the victorious side often killed enemies or spared them and offered positions—not as negotiation, but as the victor’s unquestioned right. This logic persisted well into the 20th century.
Examples such as the treatment of Jeong Jin (son of Jeong Dojeon) or Cho Bong-am's acceptance of execution under the logic of political defeat reflect the same worldview: the winner decides, and the loser endures.
2. Why Chun Doohwan Treated Chang Tae-wan Differently
2.1. Chang Tae-wan’s Actions After Democratization
After democratization, Chang Tae-wan publicly condemned Chun Doohwan and the new military regime, including an appearance on MBC’s “Kim Han-gil and People” in 1995. His public-corporation post was widely known at the time, yet no one viewed it as evidence of compromise.
By the standards of that era, accepting such a position did not imply political surrender. Chang Tae-wan was recognized throughout his life as someone who never bowed to the new regime.
2.2. The Real Question: Why Did Chun Doohwan Spare Him?
The real mystery is why Chun Doohwan—known for harsh retaliation—treated Chang Tae-wan with unusual respect from the moment he was arrested. Even during detention, Chang Tae-wan was not beaten, insulted, or tortured in the ways others were. He faced harsh interrogation, but no humiliating abuse.
2.3. Most Likely Explanation: A Macho “Man-to-Man Respect”
The prevailing interpretation is that Chun Doohwan possessed a macho, hierarchical worldview in which he respected strong opponents. As a lifelong “alpha leader” from high school through the military academy, he despised weakness.
Chang Tae-wan fought fiercely while fully aware that his resistance could lead to the destruction of his entire family line—a level of personal courage Chun Doohwan found impossible to dismiss.
Thus, even though Chang Tae-wan was an enemy, he was a kind of enemy Chun Doohwan could respect as a man.
2.4. Other Resistant Figures Who Were Not Tortured
Three major figures who resisted the coup—Chang Tae-wan, Jeong Byeong-ju, and Kim Jinki—were not subjected to humiliating torture. This pattern suggests that the coup leaders mixed brutality with a distorted sense of masculine admiration toward those who resisted head-on.
Kim Jinki, for instance, rejected high-ranking positions offered later by the Roh Tae-woo government, showing that resistance figures retained strong personal integrity regardless of later appointments.
