If, we suppose, I decide to launch fireworks, that seems innocent enough. If, however, you later learn that I was intending to launch those fireworks into my neighbor's hay barn to set the hay on fire and burn the barn down, my intentions make my actions morally wrong whether or not I was successful. This could be described as intrinsically bad, because attempted arson is wrong (human perspective), or it could be described as inherently wrong because launching fireworks is morally good, but the purpose for which I launched them was morally wrong (firework perspective. To debate whether this event is more properly referred to as intrinsically bad over inherently bad I think is somewhat unnecessary, however, I prefer intrinsically wrong for this scenario because my actions were wrong from the beginning.
I think that all results can be described in one of four categories: good results from good intentions, good results from bad intentions, bad results from good intentions, and bad results from bad intentions.
How we determine whether a result is to be called "bad" or "good" is difficult at times. Certainly the holocaust was bad, however, if Hitler had not diverted military attention to the holocaust from the military fronts, the Nazi regime likely would have won in the European theater. So even some good did come from the holocaust. (On a side note, I agree that Hitler did have megalomaniacal and narcissistic, etc. intentions other than improved society, but every megalomaniacal narcissistic world leader wants the society over which the govern to be the "best".)