The question will be a little complex...
Tibet has ben litterally invaded by China.
Tibetan have been and are still, with proof to support the fact, persecuted.

Could we say that the non-violent approach of the Buddhist Tibetan poeple may have provoked more violence to themselves, to the point of actually loosing their culture, and the teaching of non-violence in itself ?

If there is no more culture to teach and embody non-violence, can we say it self defeating ?

Can we extrapolate and assume there is a violent reality about the Tibetan in the powerlessness they have ?

The question is complex, take your time...

Thank you.
Very intersting comments !!

These are the kind of reflections I am looking for.

Being in contact with a Tibetan community, refugees. I can percieve certain aspect of pains and a level of resignation. A few years back I thought it was 'detachement" now I am not sure it is.

Yes, the Tibetan army was defeated and indefinitely occupied. The Chinese would argue that Tibet has always been, at least, a participating member of different Chinese empires throughout history (off and on). The Chinese sought to join together all the "Chinese peoples" after the civil war ended. Its possible that the means were a bit rash, but...

Is all the concern raised by the west really a concern for the good of the Tibetan people, or is it a vain desire to keep a group of people isolated from the world and all its modern conveniences as a novelty? The satisfaction of saying, "aww they're so cute, so mysterious, so, like, traditional and stuff...awww"

According to Chinese media, the railway to Lhasa is now complete, testing is being done on the passenger trains, and cargo shipments have already begun. This is the world's highest railway, providing a permanent and cost-effective link between the "rooftop of the world" and civilized society. Is it fair to deprive the Tibetan people of modern convenience because you want them to look "traditional"?

I don't think they have lost their culture or traditional ways, but now they can also use cell-phones, internet, and ATM machines in their daily lives.

I can't argue against the persecution, violence, surveillance, and intrusion they've experienced, but its necessary to point out the good that has come from the mistakes of the past.

I think the Tibetans are extremely strong-hearted and courageous to follow their beliefs of non-violence. I think this was performed to show the Chinese that there is no need for violence, but the Chinese were too power hungry to take notice of the true peacefulness of the Tibetan Buddhists. Luckily, the Tibetans practice non-attachment to their possessions, land, people etc. Therefore, they have not really lost anything, for their true happiness lies within their hearts.

Until the invasion of China into Tibet in 1959, Tibet has been a sovereign country for centuries. Being forcefully overrun by an other country is rarely pleasant, but for the Tibetans it turned into a real disaster in the years following the take-over. People died during the invasion, although few Tibetans (being Buddhist) fought. Later consequences of Mao's policies proved devastating to the country.
For example, the central Beijing government ordered that certain crops should be grown in Tibet. Many of these crops were simply not suitable for the high altitude climate, resulting in many Tibetans starving to death.
Possibly the best known disaster is the fact that in Tibet nearly all culture, philosophy and education was tightly related to Buddhism. As in Mao's China religion was considered a poison to the people, Tibetan Buddhism was almost literally wiped out. Of the estimated 6,000 monasteries, nunneries and temples only a handful were not fully destroyed. Monks and nuns were forced to break their vows and often killed if they were not prepared to break them. With the destruction of Buddhism, nearly all of Tibets cultural identity also vanished.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is probably the best known propagator to a peaceful solution for the preservation of Tibetan culture and religion, but the Chinese authorities have managed not only to ignore his efforts, but to virtually bully the rest of the world into silence on the subject. (Often along the lines of: "If you want to trade with us, shut up on human rights." This method even bullied the Americans into submission....)

considering china's population & weapons, do you think tibetans can defend themselves, even without buddhism?

Could we say that the non-violent approach of the Buddhist Tibetan poeple may have provoked more violence to themselves, to the point of actually loosing their culture, and the teaching of non-violence in itself ?

War is out of date, obsolete. (dalai lama)
1st realization: changing, decaying is inevitable.

Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.

The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:

"A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.

'You're a fool' said the veteran 'what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!'

Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.

'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'"

I think that Tibetans have actually had enormous success on account of their insistence on non-violence. Just go to a bookstore and look at how many books there are on Tibetan Buddhism! People all over the world want to know all about Tibetan religion, culture, and non-violence. The world has noticed Tibet because it stands out for its non-violence.

The non-violent way may take time to succeed, but I do believe that there are subtle successes that Tibet has had, both politically and culturally, on account of their persistence.

Furthermore, what if non-violence ultimately failed? Does that mean it was wrong? Non-effective, perhaps. But still it is the noble way. We do right sometimes not because of the success it will bring us but because it is simply the right thing to do.