So, you accept that ROC's stance regarding tibet before 1949 was as same as the PRC's of today.ROC's claims over greater China are a political football meant to protect them. The second they drop claims over the mainland can be considered a unilateral declaration of independence and I believe you know that.
Could you tell me that any chinese gov's ever acknowledge tibet's independence? Whether a territory can get its final independence is decided by both side. Unilateral independence is meanless to aonther side. The war is the only solustion to this disagreement. Unfortunately, we won.One only needs to review "actual" history. During the Chinese Civil War Tibet gained independence from Chinese control. For 36 years they existed as a free state until the 1950 invasion. If China always had sovereignty over Tibet, why was an invasion needed? Why was the exile of the Dalai Lama necessary?
Maybe you should learn the history first. The ROC inberit the rights over tibet from Qing not Mongol. Actually, the Mongoal's invation around 1700, which was caused by power struggle among tibetens, gave the chinese opportunity to finalise the control over tibet. After a series of civial wars, tibetens finally agreed that any Dalai Lama and Panchan Lama must be approved by central gov of Qing before they claim their throne. Their status in tibet was also protected by chinese army after this approval. So, as the sucessor of Qing, as long as ROC had not give up thiese rights, the tibet couldn't get real independence.How could it be integral when you just sent little miltary expeditions and then abandonded it for 36 years? Your hstiroical claims are based on the Mongol conquests, Chinese are not sucessors to the Mongols.