'Good' for the People or 'Good' for the Prince

After reading some articles online, I found out that the phrase "ends justify the means" was not invented by Machiavelli, but he just summarised an older concept in a successful way. Apparently, there is an ideology called Consequentialism which argues that an action should be judged by its consequences, not by the rightness or the wrongness of the action. Therefore, you just need a morally good 'end' and you can do whatever it takes to achieve it. This is where Machiavelli and I have a little disagreement.

I pretty much summarised Machiavelli's idea: "ends justify the means". However, Machiavelli is not really clear about the ends. We know they are valuable goals, but for whom? Are these valuable goals just for the Prince? Then, this phrase has rather a pragmatistic approach than consequentialist. I am okay with having morally acceptable goals that would benefit the greater good, but I am against the idea of someone doing whatever they want just because the end will benefit them. I don't think Machiavelli is being really clear about this. To sum up, Machiavelli's idea about ends and means are too vague for me to agree with.

I'd like to finish with an example so that you can comprehend my stand on this matter. Since The Prince is called the Dictator's Handbook, I have to give an example with the most evil dictator. I am talking about Hitler, of course. One of his aims was to create a superior and pure Aryan race, and believed his aim was 'good'. Maybe, some other Germans thought that as well. However, this can't and doesn't justify concentration camps and the war crimes that were committed. As you can see, since I can't distinguish what is good for the masses and what is good for the Prince, it's impossible for me to agree with Machiavelli on this one.