Delph - sure, Poland made numerous mistakes but the comparison is very flawed. .
Oh, this is indisputable. Poland's bad deeds during the II RP are a drop in the ocean compared to Russia - but really, my point is that Polish history isn't exactly "clean" either.
(my home country? Sadly, my home country is a cold wasteland populated by Celts, Picts and a few Nordic types for good measure, all mixed together. Only time we ever saw any Slavs was after 2004 ;))
My contention was and still is that since the Polish people chose a more literal, descriptive name of the country in the Polish language aka. Rzeczpospolita they should've used more literal translations in other foreign languages too, in English the proper translation would've been the Commonwealth of Poland.
It depends on how you view the use of Rzeczpospolita. It's obvious that the founders of the II RP wanted to show that the Polish state was the direct successor of the I RP - hence the use of Rzeczpospolita. But the II RP (and, following it, the PRL and III RP) have all been very much Republics in nature - there is certainly nothing "Commonwealth" about them - and the use of Rzeczpospolita is simply for continuity purposes rather than for any sort of significant meaning. Even the Small Constitution (although not expressly saying it) makes it clear that the country is a republic.
What's wrong with sharing the special meaning of the word Rzeczpospolita?
Well, first of all - you have the problem that Poland borders the "Commonwealth of Independent States". That's one very good reason to avoid using the name Commonwealth in English. Then you have the way that the country is clearly described as a Republic in the Constitution - why create conflict?
Republic of Poland sounds so blasé.
It's dull, sure. But Commonwealth wouldn't be so good either - it would imply the presence of some sort of monarchy.