He DID NOT have a land war on 2x fronts already going on.
At the moment he has two fronts going, counting all of the Fall Gelb as one front--it is not clear yet exactly how far along the reduction of the Netherlands and Belgium has gotten, but one would presume as OTL calendar, perhaps with half a week or a full week delay maybe. Though the Netherlands has defensive options that might have kept a major part of it unoccupied, walled off by flooding the polder land between the mainland and their speculative western bastion. But we've had no word of such ATL developments in the Low Countries.
France shall clearly fall, and then the mainland European front is down to zero. No front there.
As for Norway, the other front--it seems clear that the German invasion shall be neutralized, it is a matter of time. Soon, no front there either.
Norway, with remnant German occupiers, is nothing but a loss to Hitler as a front anyway; he should have euthanized the whole miscarried attempt and pulled back as many troops as possible much earlier. With all Norway liberated, it hardly counts as a "front" any more than Britain remaining intact across the Channel counted as one OTL. Not less to be sure; that was a front of sorts, but mainly air and to the desultory degree German sea power counted for something, naval. Same will be true of Norway; they sit across the water, and aircraft can clash above those waters or intrude on bombing runs over each other's territory; wherever Allied air cover prevails the RN and Norwegian ships patrol with near impunity if they stay out of shore gun range and keep an eye and sonar ear out for U-boats; closer in where shore artillery and Luftwaffe gaining the upper hand prevail is navally speaking no man's land and what passes for a safe shore hugging corridor for U-boats. Same as OTL with Britain across the channel. Liberating Norway basically means extending a new wing of Britain then. Neutral Sweden can remain neutral through the whole war as OTL, and even if the Swedes were to jump into the Allied bed one evening and turn all Sweden into another war zone, one much more threatening from an air strike point of view to the north tier of the Reich--that's still not a land frontier, either side would be hard put to land troops on the other side of the strait. But the Swedes probably don't want to stick their hand into that fire even if it means being on a glorious and prosperous winning side.
Soon then it will be down, as OTL, to zero land fronts for Hitler, until and unless the Allies invade Italy.
OTL there was also the North African campaign. We have every reason to suppose though that the Italians are already on a back foot, what with the French Mediterranean fleet staying loyal to the government in exile and thus incorporated into Allied strategy; communications between Italy and Libya are going to be quite difficult, whereas French forces in North Africa will be attacking Libya, or anyway holding a firm defensive line, instead of merging and giving the Italians and Germans free transit all across the shore. A strong Italian defense might keep the NA front hot for a while, but any Italian or German forces there must run a gauntlet of combined British and French naval interdiction, while holding off an attack out of Egypt and another out of Algeria. I don't think Libya will last long and the Ethiopian venture is pretty much doomed as well. OTL Vichy also had a foothold in Lebanon and Syria, this is Allied here. I won't speculate on the chances that Greece can be defended or that sections of Yugoslavia might hold out, Romania has problems even if it remains under pro-Allied leadership, which I am not sure it was by 1940 anyway. Hungary is of course Axis. So it is conceivable I guess that in lieu of a North African front, there might be a southeast European one, a damned thing in the Balkans--if Greece can be shored up enough and soon enough.
But that corner of Europe was supposed to be Mussolini's problem, not Hitler's, and perhaps if the Allied navies seal off Libya soon enough, so any Italians there have to surrender and be written off, and Mussolini can keep enough of his fleet in being on the defensive, the diversion of forces that OTL went south to the Balkans instead might mean any Allied footholds there are tied down and neutralized by Italy alone. (I expect Tito's Communist Partisans to be somewhat effective, as OTL, even in such adverse conditions--conceivably Tito himself takes a round and someone else, who might be less effective, or conceivably though not likely more so, leads the Partisans).
So--the situation will have the dust settle with Hitler facing essentially the same situation as OTL, with some rearrangements less in his favor to be sure. He doesn't get the benefits of occupying Norway but neither does he pay the same liability in terms of a tying down so many troops as he did OTL--many of those are liable to be sitting on Denmark instead I guess, which by the way would make Denmark a poor invasion route versus the much wider options of NW France. Instead of an African front, German forces might be drawn in to a Balkan front, but in these early days I think the advantage there would tend to be to the Axis. I presume that like Sweden, Turkey is likeliest to stay neutral the whole war. The Allied navies can probably secure the Greek islands for the most part, while Mussolini with some German help can seize control of the Greek mainland; any actual Balkan front would be a matter of Allied footholds on this or that Greek port, and fighting out of those to form a major front would be difficult for the Allies; just holding them would be a major drain and distraction. For both sides, but certainly no worse for the Axis than the attempt to hold North Africa OTL. Trying to go up through Italy would be as hard a slog for the Allies as it was OTL, and probably harder if early assertion of Allied naval supremacy in the Med causes Mussolini to pull his naval horns in early and concentrate on coastal defense.
In terms of number and cost of fronts then, Hitler will be no worse off than OTL, and he is apparently managing to get most of the resources he took OTL in Europe to fund buildup for Barbarossa. Balkans being in lieu of North Africa suggests to me that a year hence, the Axis would prevail in expelling Allied footholds on the mainland, and thus avoid the OTL distraction that delayed Barbarossa a month OTL. Troops and armor and so forth lost in NA OTL will either be lost securing the Balkans or not lost at all; he could, despite losing some OTL assets, wind up with more force against the Soviets, sooner. I remain confident that even so the USSR will not collapse and will ultimately piston back to crush the Reich, but few people in OTL 1941 would have that confidence, and about as few or perhaps fewer still here.
