> but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent
And where is this written as Canon?
Politics is also performed with imperfect predictions of the future. If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy.
Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point.
>> but in politics the outcome is all that matters, not the intent
> And where is this written as Canon?
In the minds of the survivors.
> If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy.
History doesn't see it that way. People don't see it that way. Hitler and Stalin are equally reviled, even though Hitler's genocide was intentional and Stalin's was a side effect of "good intentions" -- a Communist revolution.
> Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point.
Like Mao and Pol Pot? Both were able to explain their programs as "for the good of the people", and both pursued their programs long after their effect was perfectly clear.
And where is this written as Canon?
Politics is also performed with imperfect predictions of the future. If policies pursued in good faith result in the death of millions, the people implementing them are not as responsible as those for whom death is the policy.
Now, if their intent was to starve the masses to further their goals, you would have a point.