>Top officials don't have to have knowledge of it or support it, condone it, or instigate it for it to be genocide.
>
>Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

An attempt to destruct a racial, political, or cultural group can only 'succeed' if it is done in an indeed systematic, organized way. That implies top leaders who give the order to systematically kill.

A lower officer is not able to kill a whole group, unless that group is completely within his territory. The Armenians were spread over a large portion of the country, too large for any lower officer. Either the officers got their instruction to kill systematically, or it cannot be called (an attempt for) genocide.

>it could be done by a large portion of the populace, the military, or splinter factions
>
>If the question is whether or not genocide occurred, of course it did.

Of course? Killing occurred. Calling it genocide is one step too far, for me, currently.

>If the question is whether or not the Turkish government should be held responsible for the deaths, then I agree with you. Only proof via documentation or eye witness reports could validate that.

Being held responsible is a somewhat other quest. One might argue that the top leaders of those years should have given EXPLICIT order to lower officers to NOT KILL the Armenians. Not giving such orders makes them responsible for the many deaths, even if it was not pure genocide.

>Let's not forget that given that definition, The American government is responsible for the genocide of the Native Americans (but we all know that).

Genocide of the Indians? Killing yes, but was there a deliberate attempt to try to kill them all? Ordered by the government? I realize that the Indians have been dealt with in an unjustful way, but isn't calling it genocide a little bit too 'easy'?!