Just looking at WW1 they have some damn bad history right there.

Hell in 1910 Norman Angell wrote the very widely read book "The Great Illusion" whose primary argument that international banking and globalization of economies and investment were what would make wars of conquest and conflict between states futile and obsolete.

From the 1913 editions introduction: "He establishes this apparent paradox, in so far as the economic problem is concerned, by showing that wealth in the economically civilized world is founded upon credit and commercial contract (these being the outgrowth of an economic interdependence due to the increasing division of labour and greatly developed communication). If credit and commercial contract are tampered with in an attempt at confiscation, the credit-dependent wealth is undermined, and its collapse involves that of the conqueror; so that if conquest is not to be self-injurious it must respect the enemy’s property, in which case it becomes economically futile. Thus the wealth of conquered territory remains in the hands of the population of such territory. When Germany annexed Alsace, no individual German secured a single mark’s worth of Alsatian property as the spoils of war. Conquest in the modern world is a process of multiplying by x, and then obtaining the original figure by dividing by x. For a modern nation to add to its territory no more adds to the wealth of the people of such nation than it would add to the wealth of Londoners if the City of London were to annex the county of Hertford."

So just a few months later if national bankers were really motivated by profit, there was more long term profit to be made in peace then war.

I can't really answer all the claims on the page, but just a couple of smallish errors: the page implies that Spencer Percival was assassinated to install a prime minister who was more favourable to a war with America, where it's widely accepted that the guy who did it was just someone with an obsessive grudge against the government (of course a basic tenant of the conspiracist way of interpretation is that there are basically no coincidences, so this isn't an argument that would do much to convince the author). Secondly the mention that Hitler was Time 'man of the year' is cited as evidence for Time's 'lionisation' of him, but the article is actually very hostile, being 'man of the year' only meant the most influential individual that year rather than the best. The page refers to Hitler's 'successful coup' when it was actually a complete failure, he gained power a couple of years later via deals with the other political parties and the president, after the nazis were elected into parliament with about 30% of the seats.

The war of 1812 is presented as an American victory, which I believe is overstating the case, most authors have it as more inconclusive.

Lastly, the page strikes me as a little anti-semetic in tone, which doesn't make it wrong of course, just something to bear in mind. It focuses very strongly on the Rothschilds, and characterises a 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods in support of persecuted German Jews as an attempt of 'private central banks' to strangle an attack on their 'wealth and power'. The identification of the banks with the Jews is common in this kind of thinking, but most of them leave it implicit rather than spelling it out like this.