look the same to me.
The definition you used for ethnic cleansing lacks the word 'deliberate' ---- but how can "mass" expulsion/killing not be 'deliberate'?
Even according to responses thus far to this thread -- expulsion of masses of people results in deaths. There are terrible, terrible conditions, resulting in death. Is death easier to 'take' if it not execution/combat, but rather slow death through starvation, conditions and diseases with no medical intervention, and mentally/physically being beat down?
The reality is that essentially all genocides are ethnic cleansing. (Note: Perhaps if you include something like the dropping of atomic bomb in Japan as a "genocide" it might be excluded from the definition of "ethnic cleansing" since the purpose wasn't to actually get rid of and/or move the Japanese, just to kill enough of them to convince them to surrender.)
On the other hand, while most (if not all) ethnic cleansing involve some murder, it is not a necessary part of the events to be considered "ethnic cleansing".
Two examples of this are:
1. Putting native americans on reservations. Many deaths (many murders) did occur, but the intent (over all) was not to kill all native americans, but rather the intent was to move the native americans from their lands and out of the way of the non-native americans... thus it was an instance "ethnic cleansing".
2. The Holocaust, started with "ethnic cleansing" in the form of moving and isolating Jews (and some other ethnic groups) from their home into the ghettos of many cities, then the moving of these people to concentration camps, and then (the final solution) the mass killing of many of these peoples (with the apparent intent to ultimately kill them all)....thus the Holocaust was both an instance of "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".
The Holocaust really stands out as one of the worst (if not the worst) "genocide" and one of the worst (if not the worst) "ethnic cleansing"...both.