In the shortest possible answer: no WWII.
In more detail: Clemanceau was the leader of the 'hard-line' element of the French party at Versailles, he wanted to crush Germany and make it impossible for it to start another war. Perversely his actions led almost directly to the Germans starting the next World War! If the French at Versailles had been led by more of a moderate (I'm not up on my French post-war politicians, so you'll need someone else to fill in a name) then it's highly likely Wilson and his 'softly-softly' approach would held sway.
The result would have been a Germany paying reperations that reflected a more realistic assessment of the damage in relation to their present wealth (the real supposed intent of reperations - make 'em pay but not *too* much!) and handing back Alsace and Lorriane. The post-war Germany in the ATL would struggle for a few years but not collapse completely. The great depression - if it does come along - would knock them sideways but not drive them into the dark ages where you have people paying for food with lumps of coal. No occupation of German homeland territory (they would still in all probability loose their colonies) would prevent the overriding resentment building up that crippled the Weimar Republic and allow a more "hey we lost, that's the way war goes some times!" kind of government to take the reigns.
France herself would be able to sit pretty and admire all those miles and miles of desert sand they had aquired and send pretty little marching bands back into A-L to trumpet (pun intended) their victory. There would be no crisis with a defaultment of reperation payments and no Gendarmes on the Rhine.
Europe would lick it's wounds and realise power blocs and secret treaties are not the way to go. The important element in this ATL is the Great War runs it's OTL course - allowing Europeans to see for the first time war really is hell. Without the harsh French demands of a crippled Germany the fanatics and hardliners wouldn't be able to make people forget the horrors of war and replace them with the injustices of peace. The peace that would follow WWI - or rather the Great War - would allow the nations to build bridges and resolve conflicts in a more peaceful manner. In Europe at least. We would sit quietly in church on the 11th of the 11th and remember Grandad's generation and the ultimately justified sacrifice they made for peace. Not burn for revenge and plane the next round. A few would of course, but they'd be where they belong, on the extreme fringes of the political spectrum, shunned by a whole new generation who shudder at the past down tales of Zepplin bombing raids and gas on the Ypres.
One bullet and millions if not tens of millions more may not have been fired.