Managers often feign cluelessness because what else can they do? Tell you they submitted you for layoffs? Tell you they knew for weeks and said nothing? There's really no upside option here.
I have no doubt that sometimes managers really don't know, but I'd wager that most who say they didn't know probably did.
Lowest person who generally will know will usually be a senior director. Sometimes director. Sometimes VP.
Google is pretty careful about this. While it's true sometimes those people share stuff, it's definitely not en masse, and you can get yourself in significant trouble if you share it when you shouldn't, so it's less times than you think.
Eh - having had to do these myself at Google for large orgs over the past few years, i would not assume it was based on merit.
The cost disparities can be huge between team members and locations, and a lot of time it's being done to hit some EOY or mid-year budget number. They are also slowly trying to clean up location strategy.
So it's entirely possible it was based on cost and location, and not merit.
It would still be merit "under the covers" if everyone was the same cost/location, but they aren't.
If your manager is shocked by one of their team being laid off, the manager is probably next.
Of course the OP was told it wasn't based on merit, or any other arguable-in-court characteristic.
But it was. Someone decided Google was better off this way, or that OP was better off working somewhere else.