The reason why this argument is so convoluted is that Silverman has not clarified his basic premises. If he had been given the opportunity to do that, it would have eliminated most of his opposition's arguments.

"Ayn Rand argued that “moral” is the action that leads to better results in the end."
this is NOT what Rand stood for at all. you are speaking of utilitarianism. Rand was completely opposed to such thinking and for exactly the reason you are using it here. Justifying the murders of 10s of miliions because it may have a "good" result some time later. Morality begins by the rights of the individuals. It is never justified by the "rights" of a group "Europeans" or thing, "the planet." That would be saying that every Russian citizen pre-WWII was a sacrificial animal.

"If a man believes that the good is intrinsic in certain actions, he will not hesitate to force others to perform them. If he believes that the human benefit or injury caused by such actions is of no significance, he will regard a sea of blood as of no significance. If he believes that the beneficiaries of such actions are irrelevant (or interchangeable), he will regard wholesale slaughter as his moral duty in the service of a “higher” good. It is the intrinsic theory of values that produces a Robespierre, a Lenin, a Stalin, or a Hitler. It is not an accident that Eichmann was a Kantian." AR, Intrinsic Theory of Values, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal

That is the popular history. Facts are somewhat different. Stalin did not kill off his best generals – he killed off the dead wood that accumulated through Party politics. Many of the good officers were jailed, but released and sent to the Front with full rank and often promotions. I am certainly not proposing to canonize Stalin, but using him as an example of relative morality. Ayn Rand argued that “moral” is the action that leads to better results in the end. This is one outlier that may be of interest to consider.
As for Stalin’s methods before the war, given where Russia had started from after the Civil War in the mid-twenties, even, hypothetically, if they had reverted to a complete capitalist system (which would not have been possible given the mindset, education and overall development level of the surviving Russian population), they could not have achieved the very formidable military machine that Stalin was able to build by 1941. Do not underestimate that machine and that achievement – Soviet propagandists spent decades convincing the West that Russia was a disarmed victim. On the contrary, the Soviets were planning on attacking Germany and Hitler simply pre-empted them; their loses were very much akin to the Arabs’ in 1967. The fact that they recovered speaks volumes of their reserves and the size of their machine. In the first week of war, the Germans destroyed more Soviet hardware than the entire Germany had at that time, and it was all but irrelevant in the long run. The US and British help started coming in only when it became clear that Stalin will recover; the most valuable aid was food, trucks and aviation gasoline, but most of the hardware – tanks, artillery, aircraft, shells and fuel – were Russian.
Without Stalin, Russia would likely had been a prosperous country meeting the same end as Czechoslovakia.

But in order to come to that conclusion, a person would have to be ignoring objective reality-which people do all the time (enviro-nazis, SJWs)

totally disagree. first, his "murderous methods" included killing off his best generals just as WWII started. second, if he hadn't used these methods before WWII, then it's possible Hitler might not have decided to attack, because Russia might have had a thriving economy and modern army. Instead, the US bailed Russia out and slowed our ability to knock out HItler. If you want to do speculative History, don't we have to take all potential consequences of assumptions into account? :)

Not to deviate too far from evaluating the morality of Hitler, let's look at his buddy Stalin - I would argue that if it wasn't for Stalin's murderous methods and agendas, the Soviet Union, or at least the European part, would have bee conquered by his buddy Hitler and Europe would have remained under the Nazi rule for at least several generations. So, was he "moral" for sacrificing the present for the future?

Even that can be subjective - the fact that we breathe can be viewed as hurting others, when taken to an extreme (environmentalism, for ex.).

Y'know, Salta, the core premise of OBJ'sm is not only that Objective Reality exists, but that an Objective Morality can be deduced from it.

Moral Relativism is an OBJ'st pejorative.

As for the Law getting into the morality business - you have the right to be wrong so long as you don't hurt others.

Of course morality is subjective, it is based on values which come from within the mind, so must be subjective.

We in the Gulch have a morality based on reason, with life and liberty as ultimate values. We believe our morality is superior, but every person believes their own morals/values are superior to others, that why they hold them.

Other people's morality would not concern us if we had a fully objective system of Law (protecting life and liberty). But once the Law gets into the morality business (deciding for us what is the "right" thing) it becomes subjective as well.

GHBs! they are both wrong. Objective morality can be derived through reason. Relative morality, of course, immediately must ground itself (tether itself) to society or whatever our whims are. It is interesting to show that libertarians can also choose the moral relativism argument. One need not look further than Hayek-who said it's impossible to use reason to judge a society.