I used to wonder about this too. And I had an idea about who was the follow on to the USSR.
I recently commenced a study of Daniel chapter 8 and 11 using the NAC commentary as a basic reference. If you do not understand the connection between chapter 8 and chapter 11, then, you are under the influence of a very faulty WT understanding of those two chapters.
In WT parlance, chapter 8 describes the king of the south (beginning with Cassander, no less!). And chapter 11 describes the rivalry between the king of the north and south from the time of post Alexander Greece, thru Roman times, jumping down to pre 20th century and on into the 20th century. (Curiously, according to the WT, in chapter 8 the king of the south descends from Cassander. But in chapter 11 he descends from Ptolemy.)
I can tell you this: You will never understand who the 'final king of the north' is if you use WT understanding as a foundation. It is, in part, fanciful nonsense. Incidentally, here is a thread that recently touched on this.
Here is a little breakdown of chapter 8 and 11 for any who might want a better understanding of it:
Chapter 8:
verses 1-8 are Persian/Greek history leading up to Antiochus IV
verses 9-14 and 23-25 are about Antiochus IV. He is the main character and thrust of chapter 8.
Chapter 11:
verses 1-4 are Persian/Greek history thru the demise of Alexander
verses 5-20 are about the rivalry between the Selucid and Ptolemaic dynasties prior to Antiochus IV
verses 21-35 are about Antiochus IV
verses 36-43 describe a future (from Antiochus IV) king of the north who is not unlike Antiochus IV and his rivalry against the king of the south and his movement against Daniel's people.
verses 44-12:1 describe a great tribulation that brings the final KoN to an end, but saves Daniel's people.
Antiochus IV dominates chapters 8 and 11. This is why those two chapters are closely related.
Here are some of the things that are brought out about this final king of the north in Daniel:
He is atheistic, except he honors the god of fortresses. He is not affected by the 'love of women' as his forefathers were. He is rivaled by the king of the south. He acts against both the king of south and 'the land of the decoration.' He comes to an end in the same 'land' (whether actual or symbolic).
Most importantly, Daniel describes only ONE king of the north during "the appointed time of the end." Not two or three. And there is no mention of 'changing hands' as it were (ala from Kaiser's Germany to Nazi Germany to the USSR, etc). All that is WT fancifulness.
WT understanding of chapter 11, up to verse 18, is correct - because it correctly describes history as it happened - as do other non-WT Daniel references. Starting with verse 19, the WT understanding breaks with history and goes off on a non-sensical time hopping trip, attempting to match events in history that appear to relate to what is said in Daniel. Thus, verses 20-35, which should mostly apply to Antiochus IV (except verse 20) are stretched out from Roman times (about 2-4 BC) to late 19th/early 20th century (just prior to WWI). Also, the NWT in Daniel 11:22 is translated to support this: The phrase "The Leader of [the] covenant" (NWT) is actually anarthrous in Daniel ("a leader of a covenant"). The NWT makes it articular to try to give the impression that it is referring to Jesus.
I will say this about what the WT has taught: I am glad I've studied it because once I studied the real history I was able to see clearly where WT teaching matches and departs from history. And WT teaching gave me a working familiarity with the book of Daniel itself. So I appreciate those aspects of what I was taught. But like they say, 'the devil is in the details.' Having studied it now, I can see why the WT has reached an impasse in their 'understanding.'
