I've seen it argued before that the US was already the top power in the world prior to the Great Depression and World War 2, it's just that no one, not even the US itself, realized it. So if you subscribe to that argument, then the US as the top power in the world went through the Great Depression and came out of it even more ahead of the rest of the world than it was prior.
If you're looking just at the inter-war period, then maybe. The US Navy was pretty strong, the Europeans were shook, and the Japanese hadn't flexed yet. In the game of Imperialism, we'd claimed control of the Americas and the Europeans held sway over Africa. I don't think the US was a bigger power than the British Commonwealth, though. iirc, the Commonwealth of the 1910s-1940s had staggeringly huge population numbers, because they still controlled India. I'd be curious to see what the volume and value of trade out of Asia was, and where it was mainly going. At some point, the British missed the memo about aircraft carriers supplanting battleships, and that was when they lost the game.
I'm not sure that separating the three cataclysmic events of the first half of the 20th Century is the way to go, though. To my eye, World War I, the Great Depression and World War II are a trilogy that you have read together. If I were trying to draw an analogy between today's events and the upheaval of the first half of the 20th Century, we haven't even reached WWI yet. The current period could be more like 1895-1914, where the regional power starts to reach out and challenge the global powers. Teddy Roosevelt got up in the UK's face over Venezuela in 1895, and the British backed off. But they backed off because they were also dealing with Russia and Germany, they didn't want to fight
three upstarts simultaneously (although there was one RN Admiral who said they could do it), and Russia and Germany were right on their front porch. If the Royal Navy had been able to turn their full attention to the Caribbean, the US Navy would have put up a good fight before it sank. (In 2020, substitute the US Navy for the Royal Navy and the US Navy for the Chinese Navy. If China got into a fight with us right now, we'd win, and they know that, so they're not doing that. Instead, they're throwing elbows on their smaller, regional competitors in SE Asia, the same way we bullied our neighbors in the Americas in the 19th Century.) Then, in 1898, we threw down with Spain, took the Philippines and Bob's Your Uncle, we were a global power and up in Japan's face.
If history is going to repeat, or at least rhyme, we'll see China bust a move somewhere outside their current area of influence. Africa would be my guess. If I read about Chinese and Indian frigates screwing with each other off the coast of Somalia next year, I will frown out of concern. Or maybe China will decide that somebody needs to step in and resolve the Yemeni civil war in 2023, and they'll send in 7,500 marines as "peacekeepers", supported by their first aircraft carrier to enforce a "no-fly zone" or some [stuff]. I'm sure China would love to get in on the melting Arctic sea ice action, if they could, but I don't see an obvious way for them to do that. Maybe they'll try to buy Greenland or something.
There is one puzzle-piece that muddles an attempt to draw an analogy, and it has no historical precedent I can think of: Nuclear weapons. Pretty soon, everybody who wants them is going to have them.
